Oral Answers to Questions

DEFENCE

The Secretary of State was asked—

Far East (British Internees)

Kelvin Hopkins: For what reason British civilians interned in the far east during the second world war and accepted as British at the time of internment have not been granted compensation.

Austin Mitchell: For what reasons he changed the criteria for eligibility for compensation for civilians interned by the Japanese in the second world war from being British and holding British passports at the time; and how many applicants have been excluded on the basis of the subsequent changes.

Lewis Moonie: The ex-gratia payment scheme for former far east prisoners, which I announced in the House on 7 November last year, covered various British groups, including civilians who were interned by the Japanese. The eligibility criterion for civilian claimants under the scheme is that they were British subjects whom the Japanese interned, and who were born in the United Kingdom or had a parent or grandparent born in this country. That criterion was clarified earlier this year, but there has been no change in the intended scope of the scheme. Holding a British passport, either then or now, was never a criterion for eligibility under the scheme.
	As of 11 o'clock this morning, a total of 22,738 claims had been paid. Of the civilian claims that have been rejected on the grounds of nationality, 324 have been rejected from UK addresses, and 778 from overseas addresses.

Kelvin Hopkins: I thank my hon. Friend for his answer. May I draw his attention to the case of my constituent, Dr. Mark Erooga? Dr. Erooga was naturalised in 1940, swore allegiance to the sovereign, served in the Hong Kong defence reserve and was interned in 1941 when working at Kowloon hospital. After the war he worked in the national health service from its inception until his retirement. Does my hon. Friend agree that Dr. Erooga deserves to be compensated like other internees?

Lewis Moonie: Clearly, I cannot agree with my hon. Friend. However, if he sends me details of his constituent's case, I shall be happy to look at them and to write back to him on the subject.

Austin Mitchell: Although it is good that the British Government have accepted what was the moral responsibility of the Japanese Government, in paying compensation to those people, does my hon. Friend accept that, at the time, it was said that the compensation would be paid to
	"surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War"?
	The war pensions policy unit confirmed that that meant people who were British citizens at the time. The reason for their internment was that they were British citizens, so it is wrong subsequently to introduce concepts such as patriality or a blood link, which did not apply at the time—because those people were British citizens then—and on that basis to fail to pay the 700 to 800 people—it is only 700 to 800—who were entitled. Many of them are deeply shocked and upset to be told now that, having been interned by the Japanese for being British, they are no longer regarded as British. Is not that a debt of honour that should be paid?

Lewis Moonie: Given the number of people who have been paid, I consider that the debt of honour has indeed been discharged. May I point out to my hon. Friend that it would have been easy for us just to have accepted the criteria that were used in the 1950s to determine who was to be awarded compensation as a result of moneys paid by the Japanese? Had that been the case, many fewer civilians would have been included than have been under this scheme. To allow an association going back to grandparents, which even in the case of the youngest claimant takes their claim back to the 19th century, is a fair recognition by the Government of whether people are entitled to be compensated under the scheme.

Tim Loughton: The Minister will know of at least two of my constituents who have been refused claims for ex gratia payments: Mrs. Drina Leeson, who was interned as a child in Singapore where her father died, but who lost her documents while fleeing from the Japanese; and Mrs. Doris Pyett, separated from her parents, interned at the age of seven in Singapore and whose stepmother received compensation, even though she did not marry Mrs. Pyett's father until 1947, yet Mrs. Pyett did not receive compensation. Why are they and hundreds of others British enough to have been imprisoned by the Japanese as enemies of the emperor, but not enough to be acknowledged by the British Government? Is not the most hurtful consequence that people who have lived all their lives as British are suddenly, in their twilight years, told that they are not British?

Lewis Moonie: They are not, of course, being told that they are not British: they are being told that they are not eligible for this payment, which is a quite different matter.
	I will restate what I said earlier. The Government have been exceptionally generous over the inclusion criteria for the scheme. We have no intention of amending them.

Patrick Cormack: Could I ask the hon. Gentleman, who is a reasonable sort of chap, if he will pause for a minute and realise that, by taking that obdurate line, he is tarnishing a record for magnanimity that he established when he announced the scheme? Will he take out his history book and read what Lord Palmerston said at the time of the Don Pacifico incident, and make his abiding watchword, "Civis Britannicus sum"?

Lewis Moonie: I would be more inclined to accept that lesson—indeed, I have already seen the quote in question—from an Opposition Member if those on the Opposition Benches had not been quite so obdurate themselves over many years in refusing to make any kind of payment whatever. It is a bit thick for Opposition Members, who supported previous Governments, to complain now about a scheme which is, quite frankly, exceptionally generous. I am sorry that the scheme cannot cover all those who consider themselves eligible for it, but we had to draw the line somewhere, and I stand by that decision.

Andrew Dismore: May I remind my hon. Friend of the case, about which I have written to him, of Mr. Isaac Abraham, who was a British subject interned by the Japanese at the age of nine? He came to the United Kingdom in 1949 and worked for 30 years as a teacher in Britain. He was arrested by the Japanese, as were the rest of his family and other constituents of mine, because the British consul gave their details to the Japanese so that they knew whom to round up. He feels extremely cheated by this retrospective rewriting of nationality laws. In fact, if his family had collaborated with the Japanese, they would have been guilty of treason; they feel very hard done by. Bearing in mind the number of representations from both sides of the House today, I ask my hon. Friend to take another look at this very serious issue, especially as, so far, about one in three of the potential claimants have been excluded.

Lewis Moonie: As I have already said, if a parent or any grandparent had been born in this country, they would be eligible. We have rightly widened the criteria from those that were used in the 1950s, and it would not be proper to go any further than that.

Julian Lewis: Why does this Minister always end up having to defend the indefensible? Is not it a fact that if those people were British enough to suffer by being interned, they are British enough to be compensated for being interned?

Lewis Moonie: No, I regret that that is not the case. I have allowed a sufficient line of consanguinity to take as many people as possible into the net. Many people may have been classified as British who will not qualify for the payments. As I have said, a line had to be drawn somewhere, and it was drawn in the correct place.

Peter Bradley: Even if the Minister is resolute in not taking criticism from Opposition Members, I hope that he will be more sympathetic to the pleas from Labour Members. Will he confirm that, in his statement of 7 November last year, he offered no qualification in the definition of "British" that he described then? In answer to a parliamentary question that I asked, he confirmed that
	"to be eligible for the ex-gratia payment civilian claimants must have been British at the time of internment."—[Official Report, 31 October 2001; Vol. 373, c. 748W.]
	Indeed, no further clarification was offered in the advice leaflets that the War Pensions Agency issued at that time. Does he not agree with me and many hon. Members on both sides of the House that, to fulfil both the letter and the spirit of the very welcome statement that he made last November, he should include that small but important group of people who were much wronged by the Japanese and who look to this Government at least to acknowledge their suffering in the second world war?

Lewis Moonie: Well, I am afraid that I shall be just as obdurate to my hon. Friends as I have been to Opposition Members. I consider that the scheme's boundaries have been set fairly, and I do not intend to change them.

Afghanistan

Anne McIntosh: If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Navy in the recent actions in Afghanistan.

Geoff Hoon: The Royal Navy has been involved from the outset, alongside United States forces. Royal Navy submarines fired a small number of Tomahawk land attack missiles on 7 and 13 October. An amphibious task group—led by the aircraft carrier HMS Illustrious, converted for helicopter operations—has remained in the region since the end of Exercise Saif Sareea 2, with a Tomahawk missile-armed submarine presence. United Kingdom forces, including elements of 40 Commando Royal Marines, embarked with the task group, have also been deployed at the military airfield at Bagram, some 30 miles outside Kabul.
	Other forces, including Headquarters 3 Commando Brigade and 45 Commando Royal Marines, were brought to very high readiness from 17 November, for possible deployment to Afghanistan against a range of contingencies. That was a sensible precautionary measure, taking into account what was a very fluid situation. In the light of developments since, and given the more encouraging position on the ground, I have today decided to relax the notice to move of the bulk of those forces. Leading elements of 2 Para and 16 Air, Assault Brigade and key enablers will remain at 48 hours notice to move. The remainder of those forces will revert to their previous, still high, readiness state and will be able to move within one week.
	This move is a measured response that affords maximum flexibility of response. It will enable us to sustain a significant capability over the long haul, while reducing the immediate strain on our service personnel.

Anne McIntosh: I welcome that reply. The Secretary of State will recall that, together with two Labour Members, I served on HMS Cumberland last year as part of the armed forces parliamentary scheme. I wish to pay tribute to the members of the dark blues—the Royal Navy and the Royal Marines. He will appreciate, however, that to be kept almost permanently on continuous 48-hour readiness and a state of high alert is a very tall order. Is he able to tell the House why our forces are still on a state of alertness, whereas the United States marines have gone into action?

Geoff Hoon: I have just recognised the importance of maintaining a significant degree of flexibility, but I accept the hon. Lady's point that it is important that we maintain the right level of preparedness according to the needs of our joint rapid reaction force. Even in its normal state of preparedness, that force maintains a level of readiness that very few countries can match. As she said, it is important that we recognise that it is not right to keep elements at a higher state of readiness than we can justify in the light of particular circumstances. We will continue to review those circumstances and take appropriate decisions accordingly.

John McFall: I am sure that the Secretary of State will join me in congratulating the work force at HMS Faslane in my constituency who have contributed to the Royal Navy's efforts.
	With regard to the city of Kunduz and the al-Qaeda network, will my right hon. Friend confirm that we do not allow the prisoners who have been captured to escape, thereby negating the military objectives? In the same sense, will he also assure us that the prisoners are treated humanely?

Geoff Hoon: The situation in Kunduz remains confused, although the latest reports indicate that the city has finally fallen. We obviously want the minimum level of bloodshed and urge the Northern Alliance to abide by international conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war. However, the foreigners in Kunduz should not be allowed to escape simply to mount terrorist attacks elsewhere. That message has been received loud and clear, and certainly will be acted on.

Paul Keetch: The Secretary of State has mentioned the Royal Marines at Bagram, so will he tell us what measures have been put in place to secure the safety and force protection of British forces? For example, does he intend to increase the marine force at Bagram? Can he tell us exactly what the mission of the Royal Marines based there is? Are they likely to be used in support of US marine operations?
	Given the reports over the weekend about some British casualties in Afghanistan—the Secretary of State will know that I spoke to his office about that this morning—is he able to tell the House any more about that?

Geoff Hoon: Certainly, we keep under constant review the question of force protection for members of Her Majesty's armed forces at Bagram. That is very high on Ministers' agendas and something that we keep under constant review.
	The Royal Marines' mission has not changed since they first went there. It is to secure the base and ensure that there are opportunities for those conducting diplomatic and humanitarian missions to use the airstrip should that prove necessary. Indeed, yesterday, the RAF facilitated flights from Bagram for members of the Northern Alliance who were on board and heading for the talks in Bonn. Therefore, the United Kingdom played a significant and very visible role in ensuring that those talks can take place.
	As far as casualties are concerned, I will deal with that matter in due course.

John Smith: Further to my right hon. Friend's reply and in view of what took place on 11 September, has he had an opportunity to make an assessment of the rapid reaction capability of some of our NATO allies and of our ability to respond in future to acts of mass terrorism?

Geoff Hoon: There are clearly a range of capabilities within NATO forces. For example, forces in the United Kingdom and, for that matter, the United States are available at very low levels of notice and are in high states of readiness. This country has benefited from the results of the strategic defence review, because many of the decisions required on notice and readiness were taken as part of the SDR and as part of the process that continues to ensure that we have rapidly deployable forces. It is something that we want other countries that do not necessarily have that level of readiness to be able to emulate.

Bernard Jenkin: I am sure that the whole House will wish to extend sympathy, if it is needed, to any British soldiers who have been injured. We await further news on that with trepidation.
	I reiterate the support of Her Majesty's Opposition for the Government's policy of standing shoulder to shoulder with the United States in their objectives of removing the Taliban, destroying al-Qaeda and continuing the pursuit of bin Laden and his associates. May I welcome the decision to stand down the forces who it is not necessary to hold on 48-hour standby? That will be a disappointment to the forces concerned, but a considerable relief for their families. Will he clarify a comment made by the Leader of the House who put it on the record yesterday that
	"there has been no situation in which we have put British troops into the ground civil war"? Will the Secretary of State confirm that British troops are indeed on the ground, assisting the Americans with search and destroy operations?

Geoff Hoon: I can confirm that British forces are on the ground in Afghanistan, working alongside United States forces, and I will explain a little more about that in due course.

Bernard Jenkin: We appreciate that the situation remains fluid and the Secretary of State needs to maintain flexibility, but is he able to clarify plans for the contingent of Royal Marines at Bagram? There are reports that he is receiving advice that he must either reinforce that contingent or withdraw it. I note that 2 Para are remaining in readiness. Which is it to be?

Geoff Hoon: I encourage the hon. Gentleman not to believe the kinds of reports that appear in the newspapers, which seem to be the source of his information. Those reports are not true. That contingent of Royal Marines will remain there while they have a useful a job to do, which I set out in response to an earlier question, and while they are safe to do it. That is the position today.

Bernard Jenkin: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification. There is now every confidence that Afghanistan's role as a sponsor for international terrorism will be successfully concluded. There are, however, other threats from other organisations that have grievances, the motivation, the money, the means and the capability to pursue international terrorism. The Government set out their wider objectives, which are:
	"to do everything possible to eliminate the threat posed by international terrorism . . . to deter states from supporting, harbouring or acting complicitly with international terrorist groups".
	How will those wider objectives now be pursued and will the Government maintain a united policy with the United States?

Geoff Hoon: The Government have worked closely with the United States and other members of the coalition since 11 September. That is why, as the hon. Gentleman's question implies, it is important not solely to concentrate on the military response, but to recognise that a range of action has been taken against international terrorism, including financial measures, measures to ensure that terrorists cannot take advantage of our rules to allow free movement across international boundaries and measures to track down individuals in particular and bring them to justice if appropriate. A range of measures has been taken across the international coalition since 11 September. Obviously our military response has concentrated on Afghanistan. As I said previously, that sends a clear message to any other country that might be tempted to support or condone terrorism about the action that is likely to result unless they back off.

Tam Dalyell: What guidelines have been given to our forces to try to find the hordes of opium that are said to be in the possession of both the Taliban and the Northern Alliance? Is due account taken of the fact that the farmers will be deciding whether to sow crops of poppy, because it would be highly desirable to give them an incentive to sow something else?

Geoff Hoon: British forces are not there to track down hordes of opium, but they are there to destroy support for terrorism and the al-Qaeda organisation, which has extensive involvement in drug smuggling. There is little doubt that in tracking down al-Qaeda and destroying its facilities we will in the process also destroy its ability to supply drugs into this country and elsewhere.

Saif Sareea

Graham Brady: If he will make a statement on Exercise Saif Sareea 2.

Adam Ingram: The objectives of Exercise Saif Sareea 2 were to deploy and sustain a major joint force across strategic distances, and conduct combined war-fighting training in a testing desert environment. As such, it was a major test of many of our joint rapid reaction forces. Overall, our initial judgment is that the exercise has met its aims most successfully.

Graham Brady: Can the Minister confirm that a year ago the Secretary of State pressed for the cancellation of Exercise Saif Sareea 2? Was that not because he knew then that severe resource constraints would highlight serious shortcomings in the readiness of tanks, armoured vehicles, helicopters and communication equipment?

Adam Ingram: The short answer is no, but it is worth while explaining that when any major exercise of this nature is being planned, there should be a full examination of its likely cost implications. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would expect that of the Secretary of State and others involved in making those judgments. He should have listened to the earlier answer; a decision was made to go ahead with the exercise, and it has proved successful.

Syd Rapson: The Defence Committee, of which I am a member, is taking a great interest in the lessons to be learned from the exercise in Oman. However, all that effort could be wasted if nothing is learned, which was the case after the Gulf war. I hope that my right hon. Friend will ensure that lessons are learned, rather than ignoring them as the previous Government did.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend knows how comprehensive that exercise was, and we are aware that many lessons are to be learned from it. We are beginning to collate all the information so that we can do that, and ensure that we achieve our overall objective of building on the success of all aspects of the strategic defence review.

Gerald Howarth: I am sure that the House will be reassured by the Minister that the Secretary of State did not plan to cancel Exercise Saif Sareea, which has been extremely effective. It went to the very heart of the services' intentions, which is to train for operational capability, as the Chief of the Defence Staff said. Will the Minister tell us, first and foremost, what lessons have been learned so far? I realise that we are to have a meeting tomorrow to discuss this matter in more detail. Will he also give the House an assurance that money will be made available to ensure that there are further such exercises, because they are extremely valuable for operational training to ensure that our troops are able to meet the demands placed on them by Ministers in situations such as that in Afghanistan today?

Adam Ingram: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's latter point. We learn a lot from live exercises, and major exercises of this nature provide extensive lessons. I know that the hon. Gentleman will recognise that we should take time to analyse all the information, find out how we can build on success and identify any major shortcomings or weaknesses and develop them into strengths. I look forward to meeting the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues tomorrow to examine the details that he has learned from the exercise, and I am sure that it will help with our examination, which will benefit future exercises.

James Gray: Will the Minister take this opportunity to pay tribute to the airmen and women of RAF Lyneham whose Hercules aircraft played a key role in Exercise Saif Sareea, and who pride themselves on being the first into, and last out of, every operation, wherever in the world they may be deployed? Did he see the report in The Mail on Sunday yesterday, which quoted a senior defence source as saying, about the sale of the base:
	"Part of the thinking inevitably will be the amount of money that can be raised for the Treasury by selling the land for such things as housing"?
	Does the Minister feel that, in times of war, it is appropriate to be planning to sell off RAF bases for housing to the highest bidder?

Adam Ingram: I could have expected that question from the hon. Gentleman if he had been campaigning from the Back Benches on matters directly affecting his constituency. He did not mention Brize Norton or any of the other RAF bases whose involvement in this exercise has also been very helpful. He knows that a review has been undertaken to consider ways in which we can best utilise the available resources. As I explained in written answers and in a letter to him, he and other hon. Members will be advised when that review has been concluded.

Undermanning

Vincent Cable: If he will make a statement on undermanning in (a) the Army, (b) the Navy and (c) the RAF.

Adam Ingram: All three services are challenged by undermanning, with the crucial factor being balance in skills, not merely total numbers of personnel. The requirement in capability may also change over time. Consistent with this the Navy and RAF plan to achieve their manning targets by 2004 and the Army by 2005.

Vincent Cable: Is it not the case that the armed forces are collectively 9,000 short of trained strength? Will the Minister comment on his Department's experience of trying to meet that shortage, particularly in Scotland, and trying to use commercial recruiting agencies to build up numbers? Has that been a success, is it being made permanent and will it be extended throughout the United Kingdom?

Adam Ingram: The hon. Gentleman alights on a particular scheme; we are currently looking at any number of schemes, including pilot schemes and other more established ones, both to examine ways of being more successful in recruiting across a range of areas and to look at retention strategies. That does not stand still. By their very nature, pilot schemes must be tested on the ground. Lessons will be learned from the experience in Scotland, as they will from other pilot schemes. I know that the hon. Gentleman shares my belief that we should do our best to encourage people to look at the armed forces as a career.

David Cameron: When the Minister looks at manning levels in the RAF, can he not go a little further and deny the reports that all three bases, including RAF Brize Norton in my constituency, could close? The report in The Mail on Sunday goes way beyond anything that the Department has said. Does the Minister not understand that having a cost-driven, Treasury-led review at a time when British forces are overseas is the height of crass insensitivity?

Adam Ingram: It is inevitable that we will change the profile of our activity, with new aircraft coming on stream. The A400M, if and when—

Bernard Jenkin: If?

Adam Ingram: I can deal with the answer, but I am not sure that the hon. Gentleman will gain anything by heckling. Everything must be considered by being examined. The A400M is a certainty for the United Kingdom, and an international programme is also attached to it. A judgment must then be made about which air bases, as referred to by the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Cameron), will deploy the A400Ms, along with other aircraft. It is not a case of responding to a newspaper article. I hope that the hon. Gentleman accepts assurances from members of the Government, both in written answers and letters, that that is an honest review, which will be subject to the same type of consultation that applies to any other bases that have been subject to reviews both recently and further back.

Caroline Flint: Is not it the case that hundreds of women are on active service in the operation in Afghanistan, including two women pilots? Is that not a good time to talk about the many career opportunities for women in our armed services? We should look at that to make sure that vacancies are filled.

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend has makes a very good point. About 300 women in a range of posts are involved in the current conflict in Afghanistan. They are a good example to others and show that women, just as much as men, should consider the armed forces as a career.

Desmond Swayne: If at a time when the defence budget is under such manifest pressure—if Saif Sareea teaches us anything, it teaches us that—the Army and armed forces are undermanned by many thousands, what will happen to the budget if the Minister gets anywhere near his target of full manning? Will it be augmented or will there be procurement cuts?

Adam Ingram: I shall balance all the priorities when the time arises.

North-east Shipyards

Stephen Hepburn: If he will make a statement on his procurement plans in connection with north-east shipyards.

Lewis Moonie: The Government are undertaking the largest programme of new warship building in this country for decades. We have already placed orders, or announced our intention to place orders, for 15 new warships for the Royal Navy, and we plan further orders for new aircraft carriers, Astute class submarines, type 45 destroyers, the new surface combatant class, as well as a number of support vessels. It remains our policy that all warships will continue to be built in the United Kingdom; that extensive programme offers the UK shipbuilding industry a solid platform of work opportunities.
	Shipyards in the north-east have already benefited from the programme with the contract to build two alternative landing ships logistics at Swan Hunter on Tyneside awarded last December. Swan Hunter is also the lead yard for a further two vessels of that class to be built by BAE Systems at Govan on the Clyde. We fully expect shipyards in the north-east to be in a position to bid strongly for future orders when they are offered for competition.

Stephen Hepburn: The Minister will know that the north-east work force is one of the best in the world, but is he aware that the average age of the skilled worker on the Tyne is 50 and rising? The north-east shipyards are important not only to the economy of the north, but to the strategic interest of the country. Will my hon. Friend use his procurement powers to bring orders forward, and will he make a more detailed statement on the aircraft carrier, which is so important to the north-east and the future of its shipyards?

Lewis Moonie: Yes, we are well aware of the value of military work for the north-east. As my hon. Friend knows, Swan Hunter will be placing a great many subcontracts for the vessels that it is building, and I hope that many of those will be placed in the north-east. Contracts have recently been placed, for example, with Sir Joseph Isherwood Ltd. in North Shields and Imtech UK in Middlesbrough. Although the final choice of supplier rests with Swan Hunter as the prime contractor, we hope that many of those orders will be placed and will help to maintain the skills base.
	With regard to the aircraft carrier programme, it is difficult for me to add much to what was said last month. The down selection is continuing, with the competing primes going through assessment work and developing proposals for the final build for the carriers. I shall keep the House informed as soon as we have further information to impart.

Crispin Blunt: Why are the ALSLs—alternative landing ships logistics—being built in Glasgow, when no requirement for them was identified in the strategic defence review? Is not the truth that the ships are part of the Government's industrial and political policy towards Glasgow, rather than a proper part of the defence policy, to make up for the fact that the shipyards in Glasgow failed to win the orders for the roll-on/roll-off ferries?

Lewis Moonie: I must point out that there was a requirement for other ships. We decided to bring the order forward because that was the way we could secure best value for money under our new contracting system, which, as the National Audit Office report indicated last week, is already beginning to pay off very satisfactorily in terms of our procurement programme.

Jim Cousins: I am sure that the Minister appreciates that Ministry of Defence civilian employment is lower in the north-east than in any other region or nation of the United Kingdom. He also knows, as he has just referred to it, that the design capability for the landing ships about which he spoke exists in the north-east—which, for the benefit of Opposition Members, does not include the city of Glasgow. Will my hon. Friend ensure, by the placing of procurement orders, the continued existence of that design capability in the north-east, whose benefits he has just celebrated and recognised? Unless he offers the basic line of procurement support, that design capability could well cease to exist, to the disbenefit of the north-east and the whole of Britain.

Lewis Moonie: Yes; I am well aware that the north-east is under-represented in terms of Ministry of Defence staff. We have looked into the matter, but I have not been able to identify anything that could conveniently be sent up there. However, that does not mean that we will not continue to look, where possible, to disperse civil servants from the centre to the periphery. The maintenance of the skills base is not just the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, the orders for the ALSLs are already in place, and I would expect the north-east to share in the orders to come over the next few years.

Royal Marines

Ben Chapman: If he will make a statement on the role of the Royal Marines in combating international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: A detachment of Royal Marines is on the ground at Bagram airport in Afghanistan, and was augmented over the weekend. Operating under US tactical command, they are there as part of a coalition reconnaissance mission to help to secure the airport and make it safe for UN and other diplomatic and humanitarian missions. Although the notice to move of 45 Commando has now been relaxed, 40 Commando Royal Marines remains at very high readiness against possible deployment to meet a range of contingencies.
	In addition, British forces have been active on the ground inside Afghanistan for some time. Working closely with US forces, they have been engaged on a range of operational tasks in different parts of Afghanistan. The House would not expect me to go into great detail, but I am confident that it will join me in paying tribute to the professionalism and gallantry of those involved, including the very small number who have been wounded in the conduct of those duties.

Ben Chapman: Would my right hon. Friend care to comment on the press reports of a rift between us and the Americans regarding the deployment of the Marines at Bagram, as well as on the military objectives of the campaign in general? Does he envisage a long-term role for the Marines in building the peace, as they have done so splendidly in Kosovo?

Geoff Hoon: There is simply no truth in the reports to which my hon. Friend refers. The deployment at Bagram was carried out in close consultation with US forces and, as I have indicated to the House, our troops there are under the tactical command of a US officer. We have worked closely with the United States at every stage of the military operation and, indeed, of the humanitarian and diplomatic operation that is now under way.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend—if I may call him that—the Member for Portsmouth, North (Syd Rapson) and I have the honour of chairing the all-party group on the Royal Marines, which will be receiving a detailed briefing from the Commandant-General of the Royal Marines in January. The whole House is of course invited, but in the meantime, would the Secretary of State care to say whether he feels that there are now sufficient numbers of Royal Marines at Bagram to maintain their safety? What were the original plans for the number of Royal Marines who were to be posted to Bagram? We are told that that number was curtailed because of lobbying by the Northern Alliance.

Geoff Hoon: I have already told the House that my overriding concern is for the safety of British forces deployed in any theatre, particularly in Afghanistan at the present time. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there are sufficient numbers for their safety. That is constantly reviewed and I assure him that we will continue that process. On his further question, there have been no plans to post Royal Marines, as he so elegantly put it, to Bagram airstrip. There was a range of contingencies 10 days ago, when a range of British forces were moved to a higher state of readiness. Those contingencies have changed in that 10-day period. That is why I judge it appropriate to relax, for some of those forces, their present state of readiness.

Macedonia

Vernon Coaker: Which British forces are stationed in Macedonia.

Ross Cranston: Which British forces are in Macedonia.

Adam Ingram: The UK deployed some 2,000 troops to Macedonia at the end of August as lead nation in Operation Essential Harvest, the NATO operation to collect weapons from the National Liberation Army. This was a time-limited task and those troops all withdrew by 12 October, having successfully completed their mission. The operation has made a significant contribution to the peace process in Macedonia and I congratulate those involved. Currently, about 40 British service personnel are deployed to Macedonia in headquarters roles at the British Embassy and in support of the Macedonian Government.

Vernon Coaker: I join my right hon. Friend in congratulating our troops in Macedonia. Is not one of the lessons of the action that they took there that, in many more such situations, they will have to be involved in peacekeeping missions and in preventing conflict before it breaks out, rather than dealing with the consequences? Will he talk to other countries and international bodies such as the UN about how that might be brought about?

Adam Ingram: My hon. Friend asks an interesting question. The answer must be that, yes, on occasion, what he describes may well be a requirement of a joint rapid reaction force, but it depends on the circumstances. Clearly, different demands can be made, whether the initiative is UN-led, part of a NATO deployment, or some other type of European deployment that is part of a NATO deployment. What we have achieved in Macedonia, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and Bosnia has shown that we are capable and are getting better. That is why there is always a request for British troops to be deployed: we are good at what we do.

Ross Cranston: I am sure that my right hon. Friend is as concerned as I am about the recent serious ethnic conflict in Macedonia. According to certain accounts, some of that conflict has been stirred up by hard-line elements in the Government, so our presence there has been essential. Am not I right in thinking that Germany now leads that deployment? If that is so, is it not a sign that Germany now shows a more confident, active and mature approach to European defence?

Adam Ingram: Part of Taskforce Harvest, in which United Kingdom troops were originally deployed, involved France, Germany, Greece and Italy. All provided large numbers of troops. My hon. and learned Friend is right to say that Operation Amber Fox is under German leadership. That shows an increasing involvement of European Union countries as their capabilities build alongside ours. It also shows that they can carry out those tasks successfully.

Sydney Chapman: Will the Minister confirm that the operations in Macedonia were undertaken entirely by NATO personnel and assets? Why, therefore, was it believed necessary to set up duplicate structures under the European security and defence policy? Surely EU military structures were totally unnecessary; establishing them snubs NATO European, non-EU, countries such as Turkey.

Adam Ingram: The current operation is called Operation Amber Fox. I do not necessarily want to shoot the hon. Gentleman's fox, but he is wrong. No duplicate structures were set up and operations in Macedonia were clearly under the command of and controlled by NATO.

Patrick Mercer: The Minister knows that operations in Macedonia and now in Afghanistan have placed an intolerable burden on our intelligence-gathering assets, especially the defence intelligence staff and the Joint Air Reconnaissance Intelligence Centre. After much probing in mid-October, several specialist reservists were called in specifically to help those two agencies. Why, several weeks later, is not a single reservist under arms?

Adam Ingram: I do not accept the premise of the hon. Gentleman's question. There was no intolerable pressure on our intelligence-gathering staff. They have performed their tasks admirably, and provide advice and support to those who make the ultimate decisions about finding answers to difficult and complex problems. A request was made to reservists, and only a few have been used.

International Terrorism

Tony Cunningham: What recent discussions he has had with his European counterparts on international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: I discussed international terrorism with my European counterparts at the capabilities improvement conference in Brussels on 19 and 20 November. In addition, in the past week I have had separate meetings with several ministerial counterparts, addressing international terrorism among other topics.

Tony Cunningham: I thank my right hon. Friend. Has he discussed with his European counterparts the implications of the action in Afghanistan for European defence—especially, whether it has highlighted the need for European nations collectively to improve their defence capabilities?

Geoff Hoon: I suggested that to my European defence counterparts at the capabilities improvement conference. It is important to recognise that events in Afghanistan have further emphasised the need for European nations to improve their military capabilities. I set out that message at the conference and in a series of bilateral meetings with my counterparts. I am pleased that good progress has been made and that further progress is in prospect.

Nicholas Winterton: Will the Secretary of State admit that some of our European counterparts have been far less enthusiastic than us about our campaign against international terrorism? One or two have been decidedly hostile. Does he agree that it is satisfactory that we are still able to make decisions as a sovereign nation to support the United States in its, and our, campaign against international terrorism?

Geoff Hoon: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. I cannot think of a single European nation that has not been equally enthusiastic in its determination to tackle international terrorism. Many European continental nations have experienced the frustration of not being able to get their forces into the theatre of operations quickly enough to participate. I repeat that our emphasis on European defence is in order to improve European military capabilities. Our European partners share that ambition.

Brian Jenkins: I welcome my right hon. Friend's answer, but we all realise that we are working in NATO in a day-to-day relationship, and that our NATO partners have certain strengths and skills, because they have had an opportunity to use them that we have not recently had. Are those skills available to all partners in NATO, and are they being rolled out across the NATO theatre?

Geoff Hoon: A range of capabilities is available to NATO countries. One of the advantages for the United Kingdom is that we have been able to build on the work conducted through the strategic defence review process. It is important that other countries recognise the need to be able to deploy their forces rapidly into potential theatres of conflict. That is accepted across the board by our NATO partners and by EU countries, and it underlies NATO's work on the defence capabilities initiative and on the European Union headline goal process.

David Laws: Will the Secretary of State tell us whether his recent discussions with his European counterparts reviewed the number of coalition casualties sustained in the conflict so far? In particular, will he tell us whether any of the British casualties have been evacuated back to the United Kingdom?

Geoff Hoon: There was no discussion of casualties at the meetings. The British casualties have been evacuated back to the United Kingdom.

Armed Forces Medical Staff

Laura Moffatt: If he will make a statement on the recruitment of trained medical staff to the armed forces, with particular reference to the fields of orthopaedics and anaesthetics.

Lewis Moonie: We have acknowledged that there are serious manpower shortages in a number of areas of the defence medical services, including orthopaedic surgeons and anaesthetists. To improve the situation in the short to medium term, we are seeking to recruit fully trained individuals, particularly in the critical shortage areas. A number of recruiting advertisements for general practitioners were placed in professional journals earlier this year, and advertisements for anaesthetists were placed somewhat later. The response rate has been promising, but it is too early to comment on the success of these initiatives.

Laura Moffatt: I am pleased that there are initiatives to assist the armed forces in recruiting the people that they need. Does my hon. Friend agree that the most important issue is the quality of the partnerships between the two organisations under pressure: the NHS staff and the medical services? Will he assure us that those partnerships are of high quality, that they are able to act flexibly, and that they are used often to ensure that they are put to good use in getting people into the services?

Lewis Moonie: Yes, I can give my hon. Friend that assurance. Our hospital units have been up and running now for several years. It is fair to say that, in the initial stages, there were some difficulties in marrying the two cultures. I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that co-operation between the NHS hosts and their military counterparts in these units is now very good, and we are beginning to benefit from the synergy between the two organisations. This will be of particular benefit as we attempt to train the number of specialists that we shall need over the next few years, to meet the undoubted shortfalls that we have at present.

Peter Viggers: It is not recruitment that is the problem, but retention of trained service personnel in the medical field. That situation has been made far worse—even disastrous—by the stated closure of the Royal Hospital, Haslar, in my constituency, leading to a shortfall of about 75 per cent. in some key faculties. Has the Minister seen a document called "Strategic Vision", an agreement between the Ministry of Defence and the national health service, which confirms the future of Haslar hospital for the next seven years? Does he accept that, if the hospital were to be confirmed on a permanent basis, it would help him to retain the medical staff that he needs?

Lewis Moonie: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that Haslar can exist at present only as part of the medical services provided in Portsmouth. When the new hospital is built in six or seven years' time, with sufficient capacity for both military and civilian use, there will, I suspect, be very little further need for Haslar. I have made it plain to the hon. Gentleman on many occasions that we have an obligation to provide a case mix for specialists, and proper professional training for those at registrar level. Haslar does not provide that on its own, and can exist only as part of the integrated services in the Portsmouth region.
	I have also mentioned to the hon. Gentleman before that we shall consider retaining whatever services we can in the south of the Gosport peninsula. I am aware of its isolation and of the need for some form of medical provision in future. That, of course, is not the responsibility of the Ministry of Defence, but I shall certainly do everything that I can to support that aim.

International Terrorism

Kevan Jones: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism.

Paul Farrelly: If he will make a statement on his plans for the future involvement of British forces in combating international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: Given the rapid pace of events, I have concluded that it is no longer necessary for all the units placed 10 days ago on 48 hours' notice to move to remain at that state of readiness. With the exception of elements of 2 Para and 16 Air Assault Brigade and their key enablers, the bulk of those forces will revert to their previous state of readiness and be able to move within a week. Before any decisions are taken to deploy any of those forces to Afghanistan, we shall take account of the situation on the ground, including reports from the detachment at Bagram, the progress of the political process being set in train in Bonn this week, and consultations in the coalition.

Kevan Jones: Following the media reports, particularly in The Daily Telegraph this morning, that the United States is to extend the war on terrorism to include possible action in Somalia and Sudan, are there are any current plans for British forces to be involved in such action with the United States?

Geoff Hoon: As I told the House earlier, our military action is focused on Afghanistan, but we recognise that terrorism is a wider problem, which has been addressed since 11 September. That is why we shall continue to take action on the financing of terrorism and the ability of terrorists to develop weapons, as well as on the movement of terrorists from one country to another. That action will continue. Indeed, the military action in Afghanistan will send the clearest message to any state that is tempted to support terrorism.

Paul Farrelly: My right hon. Friend has said that the mission at Bagram is well defined, but there seems to be confusion as to how welcome British forces in and around Kabul are to the Northern Alliance. He will agree that the situation there is far different from that in Kosovo, where there was one well defined enemy rather than many barely distinguishable recent allies who history shows are likely to turn on each other—let alone outsiders—at the drop of a hat. Will he therefore assure the House that British troops will not be committed to Kabul on peacekeeping duties without the agreement of the major Afghan factions, and explain what actions the Government have taken to encourage the United Nations to put together such a force in case it is needed?

Geoff Hoon: That is obviously one contingency of which we shall take account before making any decision to deploy further forces in Afghanistan. It is important that we work closely with our international partners in the coalition and, equally, with the United Nations. The work undertaken to ensure that the representative elements of the Northern Alliance reach Bonn is a visible sign of that. It is important that the United Kingdom give military support where necessary to the efforts to rebuild Afghanistan.

Peter Tapsell: Will the Secretary of State ensure that in no circumstances are British forces left as a permanent garrison in Afghanistan? Does he agree that, when we reach the phase of reconstruction and peacekeeping, it will be far more appropriate for the forces employed for those purposes to come from currently non-combatant countries of appropriate Islamic background and to be under the auspices of the UN?

Geoff Hoon: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. The point about a rapid reaction force is that it should be able to get into a potential conflict quickly. Logically, it should also be able to get out equally quickly. That is the lesson of the deployment to Macedonia, where we successfully showed that we could achieve success by limiting our presence to a brief operation, allowing those forces to be used again should the eventuality arise.

Mark Francois: Can the Secretary of State confirm whether any units or individuals from the Royal Marine Reserve have been mobilised for service in Afghanistan? If so, are any such personnel serving there?

Geoff Hoon: That is not the position for the moment, but obviously we continue to pay regard to the important role that reserves can play. As the hon. Gentleman will understand from an earlier exchange involving one of my ministerial colleagues, efforts have been made to utilise the skills immediately available from the reserves, and that process will continue as and when we require them.

Lindsay Hoyle: What progress the British military contribution is making in the campaign against international terrorism.

Geoff Hoon: The United Kingdom has been involved from the outset in the campaign against international terrorism. The Royal Navy has fired Tomahawk land attack missiles at a range of terrorist and military targets, and the RAF has flown more than 200 sorties in support of United States strike aircraft. The Royal Navy has an amphibious task group in the region, and we have deployed a detachment of Royal Marines to Bagram airfield. As I have also made plain, British forces have been engaged in operations on the ground, working closely with US forces.

Lindsay Hoyle: I thank my right hon. Friend for those comments. Does he recognise that we must have the right equipment for the fight against international terrorism, and that rapid deployment capability is one of the main strengths of that? Does he also recognise the need for a heavy-lift aircraft, such as the A400M? Can that programme be brought forward?

Geoff Hoon: No Defence Question Time would be complete without my hon. Friend making his customary contribution on A400M. I am delighted to be able to agree with him yet again.

Points of Order

Simon Burns: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Could you assist the House? As you well know, the Minister without Portfolio, the right hon. Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), does not have a Question Time slot in the Chamber, so could you arrange for him to be present at Health questions on 11 December? Given his comment over the weekend that the health service under the present Government was worse than it was under the previous Government, it seems that he knows more than the Secretary of State for Health about what is going on in the health service in the real world.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a matter for the Chair.

David Winnick: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As you know, there is a good deal of controversy over the fact that the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards is not having her contract renewed. The next opportunity to question the Member representing the House of Commons Commission will be Tuesday 4 December, and the question that I have tabled may or may not be reached. Given the controversy and the general feeling, which I have expressed previously, that this person is being sacked because she is carrying out her duties too well, will there be an opportunity for that question and related questions to be answered after 3.30 pm? May I make the point to you, the Speaker of the House of Commons, that there is not much opportunity for Members to ask oral questions on such an important and controversial matter? There may be a case for you to consider whether the question should be answered after 3.30 pm.

Mr. Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood), who answers for the Commission, will consider the point that the hon. Gentleman has made.

Crispin Blunt: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We can be pretty confident that we know the answer to a written question tabled by the hon. Member for Preston (Mr. Hendrick), which is due for answer now, because it was given on the "Today" programme this morning. It is about the conversion of a male prison into a female prison, and on the programme we were given the name of the prison that will be converted.
	I asked for a statement on the mismanagement of the Prison Service and its inability to cope with a four-year rising trend in the number of women being sent down. That written question has been used as part of a public information strategy by the Prison Service and the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), who is happily in her place on the Government Front Bench, to put pressure on the judiciary not to send as many women to prison and to change their sentences, despite the fact that they are following current sentencing guidelines. Do you agree with me, Mr. Speaker, that that is a wholly improper use of parliamentary procedure?

Mr. Speaker: A parliamentary question should not be revealed until it has been put before the House. I shall look into the issue that the hon. Gentleman has raised and come back to him.

Nicholas Winterton: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am not sure whether I misheard the Secretary of State for Defence during Question Time, but when the matter of casualties in Afghanistan was raised, I thought that he said that he would deal with it at a later date. Casualties are of great importance to the House. I waited to seek to intervene on the matter because I believed that the right hon. Gentleman might have dealt with it at a later stage in Question Time. Have you had any notice from him about when he will make an announcement in the House on any casualties that have been suffered in Afghanistan?

Mr. Speaker: That is a matter for the Secretary of State, who has, I am sure, heard the concerns expressed by the hon. Gentleman.

George Osborne: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Will you confirm that the regulation of the hours and working practices of the House are properly a matter for the House? Did you share my surprise on reading first, the headline on the front page of The Sunday Times, "MPs set to get four-day week with shorter hours", and secondly, that this is a proposal dreamt up by the Leader of the House? Should not such proposals be presented first not to national newspapers, but to the Chamber?

Mr. Speaker: This is a matter for the House—the hon. Gentleman is right about that—but I advise the hon. Gentleman, as a new Member, not to believe everything that he reads in the press.

Gerald Kaufman: Further to the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt), Mr. Speaker. Could any response to his remarks about women's prisons take into account the fact that whatever is wrong in women's prisons today, we are not chaining down pregnant women?

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Orders of the Day
	 — 
	Anti-terrorism, Crime and Security Bill
	 — 
	[2nd Allotted Day]

Considered in Committee.
	Clauses 36 and 37 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 38
	 — 
	Religious hatred offences

Simon Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 19, line 15, leave out "RACIAL OR RELIGIOUS HATRED" and insert "HATRED OFFENCES".

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 154, in page 19, line 18, leave out "religious".
	Amendment No. 155, in page 19, line 19, leave out from "Part" to end of line 20 and insert—
	'"hatred offences" means hatred against a group of persons or individuals defined by reference to their age, disability, gender, race, religion or sexuality.'
	Amendment No. 19, in page 19, line 20, at end insert—
	'but shall not include hatred of a belief or lack of belief where such hatred does not extend to the person or persons holding that belief'.
	Amendment No. 20, in page 19, line 20, at end insert—
	'17B Meaning of religious belief
	In this part, "religious belief" means belief in a supernatural being, thing or principle and the acceptance of canons of conduct in order to give effect to that belief which are lawful'.
	Amendment No. 106, in page 19, line 20, at end insert—
	'(3A) In section 18, after subsection (2) insert—
	"(5A) No prosecution may be brought under this section solely on the grounds that a person has used words which are expressions of the tenets of any religion or which form part of the rites of any religion.".'.
	Amendment No. 156, in page 19, line 21, leave out "racial or religious hatred", and insert "hatred offences".
	Amendment No. 157, in page 19, line 35, leave out "religious hatred" and insert "hatred".
	Amendment No. 158, in page 19, line 38, leave out "racial or religious hatred" and insert "hatred offences".
	Clause 38 stand part.
	Clause 39 stand part.
	Amendment No. 3, in clause 40, page 20, line 40, leave out "or religious".
	Clauses 40 to 42 stand part.
	New clause 1—Abolition of common law offence of blasphemy—
	'1. The following common law offences are hereby abolished:
	(a) blasphemy and blasphemous libel;
	(b) any distinct offence of disturbing a religious service or religious devotions;
	(c) any religious offence of striking a person in a church or churchyard.
	2. The following provisions are hereby repealed:
	(a) in section 1 of the Criminal Libel Act 1819, the words "and blasphemous libel, or";
	(b) in sections 3 and 4 of the Law of Libel Amendment Act 1888 the words "blasphemous or".
	3. This provision shall not extend to Scotland or Northern Ireland.'.
	New clause 4—Consultation—
	'Part 5 of this Act shall not have effect until the Secretary of State has conducted a consultation exercise on its proposals with the following bodies, and placed a copy of their responses in the Library of the House of Commons—
	(a) The Law Society
	(b) The Bar Association
	(c) The Justices' Clerks
	(d) The Districts Judges (Magistrates' Courts)
	(e) The Lay Magistracy, and
	(f) The Crown Court Judges.'.
	New clause 10—Consultation (No. 2.)—
	'( ) Part 5 of this Act shall not come into force until the Secretary of State has undertaken a review including consultation with the following bodies and representatives, and other bodies which he judges will be affected by the provisions, and he has published the conclusions of that review—
	(a) representatives of recognised faith groups;
	(b) representatives of the police;
	(c) representatives of lawyers, judges and the lay magistracy;
	(d) the Commission for Racial Equality.'.

Simon Hughes: I shall speak to amendments Nos. 153 to 158, which are similar in purport. I shall then make specific reference to new clause 10. The crucial question, however, is whether clause 38 is to stand part of the Bill. My view and that of my colleagues is similar to that of the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and his colleagues. No doubt the hon. Gentleman will catch your eye shortly, Sir Alan.
	This is the important part of the Bill, which effectively deals with religious hatred. It is entitled "Race and Religion", and it seeks to move the legal protection currently given to those affected by racial hatred into an additional area, that of religious hatred. After making a few general remarks I shall deal briefly with the specifics. I am conscious that the subject is important to the Committee and to the House, and that a wide remit is involved. We have relatively little time to deal with it, however, because we must finish the debate on this part of the Bill by 6.30 pm.

Patrick Cormack: Has the hon. Gentleman seen reports that the Home Secretary might be minded to heed the strong feeling in the House that the Bill is not the right vehicle for legislation on this highly sensitive matter? Would it not assist us materially if the Home Secretary told us now that that is correct, so that we could devote more time to the other important aspects of the Bill?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman provides a timely prompt, as I have seen those reports. I suppose that I am thereby owning up to reading The Sunday Telegraph, as other hon. Members do, but I am glad to do so. This morning, I also heard the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), on the radio. Although she said that the Government had not yet changed their mind, she seemed to suggest that they might be persuaded to do so. I would therefore be very happy to give way to the Home Secretary if he would like to tell us the Government's current position.

David Blunkett: I can do no better than to quote Mr. Speaker's recent words: "Don't believe everything that you read in the newspapers."

Simon Hughes: On that basis, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), other hon. Members and I will have to proceed to debate these important provisions.
	The provisions seem to deal with three important and clearly interdependent issues: how people worship, how people express their faith and their comments, and how people with no faith comment on faith and on people with faith. They also deal with three freedoms: the freedom of religion and the freedom of expression, both of which are protected in law, and the freedom from discrimination, which is substantially but not completely protected in law.
	It is fair to say, as the hon. Member for South Staffordshire said, that the Bill's inclusion of provisions addressing those issues has been the subject of much comment and controversy and considerable concern. Authors and comedians have clearly said that they want to be able to write and speak critically about faith or faiths and about those who profess them. I should think that there is no dissension from that proposition on either side of the Committee. Moreover, adherents of faith want to be able to express and share their faith and seek to win people to it. Other amendments in this group, not least that tabled by the right hon. Member for North–West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), seek to clarify that issue.
	Many people of a recognised faith, of private faith and of no faith have expressed concern about the fact that the legislation deals with matters of faith and associates those matters with the concept of terrorism. Their concern is a particularly strong reason why the Government must overwhelmingly convince the Committee of the need to deal with those matters in the Bill. All hon. Members and all corners in British politics have made it clear that, logically, those matters should not be associated even by implication with a war, battle or campaign against terrorism, and that we must make it clear that the legislation is not directed against any particular faith or people of any particular faith.

Diane Abbott: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Evangelical Alliance, among other groups, has written to hon. Members to say that although it wants legislation to address those issues, it does not believe that they are appropriately addressed in this Bill? The alliance wants wider debate and properly considered legislation.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Lady is absolutely right. I saw the Evangelical Alliance's very short and straightforward submission, which stated that although it understood the issue and supported the argument, it did not think that it was possible in the time available to do justice to the cause. Moreover, that view is shared by all the representatives of Britain's faith communities to whom I have spoken or whose submissions I have read since we learned that the Government were considering placing such a provision on their agenda.
	In recent days, I have not read anything said by the Church or by the Muslim, Jewish, Sikh or Hindu communities that suggests that this Bill is the right place to deal with those matters. I have also had express conversations with those who know the mind of, for example, the General Synod of the Church of England and of the coalition of Muslim groups and they seem to hold precisely the same view. They also seem to have grown stronger in that view in recent days.

Tony Wright: The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer. If he waives his fee for a second, could I ask him a question? If the legislation were in force and someone said, "I hate all religious fundamentalists and all right-minded people should hate them", would they be caught by this provision?

Simon Hughes: It is a difficult question, but I shall seek to answer it; there is certainly no question of a fee. Under the Bill as drafted, the person concerned must have had the intention to produce a consequence, the consequence being that people would suffer as a result of what had been said. There has to be the statement and the consequence. To be fair, the Bill clearly specifies that. The trouble is that it would be a matter for the courts, in each case, to define whether there was the intention as well as the statement. Clearly, that issue must be discussed and sorted out.
	The provision cannot go into legislation if there is a doubt about whether certain words or language could be turned into something that would have imputed to them an intention, as opposed to no intention, of a consequence. That is exactly the sort of phrase that does not have an immediate answer, which is why we need to proceed carefully. I will come back to the other arguments that suggest that the wording of the Bill is not clear enough, and which may persuade the Committee about the new clause.

Oliver Letwin: In order that the debate should proceed from the right position, does the hon. Gentleman agree that the way in which the Bill is drafted means that even if it were not the intention of the person speaking to produce the consequence of hatred, but it was likely in all the circumstances that hatred might follow, that person might be caught?

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman prompts me to deal with a point that I was going to make later—that it is the second linked formulation of the offence that makes it even more far reaching. There is not just an intention to commit an offence, but a likelihood that an offence might be committed, that violence might follow or that there might be the consequence of hatred. That is much more difficult to get right.
	I wish to refer to an example in the context of the amendment tabled by the right hon. Member for North–West Cambridgeshire. Jews might say things—or Sikhs, Muslims or Christians—that they feel are matters of belief for them. They might say them with the conviction that they are justified in so speaking. They might not intend that their words should incite anybody else to any particular activity. However, it might be said in a way that does incite people to that particular activity. For example, if one went into a mixed-faith crowd and said that Islam was the only true faith and that anybody who did not follow the true faith would not have eternal life and would go to hell, that could be regarded, by definition, as going down the route towards incitement.

David Blunkett: How could it?

Simon Hughes: I am not seeking to exaggerate the import of the Bill. I am not seeking to say that the courts will take a wider interpretation as opposed to a narrow interpretation. But no definition of religion is proposed, and this is not something with which the courts are used to dealing. There are one or two other pieces of legislation where there has been a reference to religion, but that is another reason why we must be careful. We have not specified exactly the meaning of the offence.

Brian Mawhinney: Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that it might go further and that in response to his example others may react violently, putting the blame on the statement and arguing "likely effect", and that it would be within the scope of the Bill to do so?

Simon Hughes: I understand that, and others might argue that that justified their reaction or response. To be fair, the commission of the offence could be judged objectively only in terms of what the person accused did. I have not taken six legal opinions, but the advice we have received suggests that judgment would have to be made on the normal interpretation and normal consequence of the words used. Therefore, if someone interpreted such a statement as inciting or provocative, that would not necessarily carry them over the threshold. However, that is not clear.
	Some people, including the Evangelical Alliance, say that before we proceed there needs to be a code of guidance and rules about when it would be used. The protection in law—namely, that the Attorney-General would have to authorise prosecutions—is not sufficient at present because we still do not know the context of certain prosecutions. Of course the legislation will be used carefully, but that does not mean it will never be used in a way that people do not expect. For example, the use of the blasphemy law some 15 or 20 years ago, originally in a private prosecution, suddenly invoked legislation where it had not been expected or intended. We must be careful not to go down that road again.

David Wilshire: The hon. Gentleman said that no religious group with which he had had contact wanted the clause but then said that there was no definition of religion. Is he aware that there are religious groups—or cults, as some people call them—which privately welcome the clause because it will give them protection while they go on harming other people, which none of us wants? Is not that another reason why clause 38 should be removed?

Simon Hughes: I do not argue with any representations that the hon. Gentleman may have had. I have not had such representations, but I understand the argument. However, the interpretation of "religion" must not cover simply the great world faiths; it must be much more narrowly defined. There is an argument that if there is to be a definition, it should refer to "religion or other belief", not just something that calls itself a religion. It should also cover a lack of religion or belief, because otherwise agnostics or atheists are not treated equally. [Interruption.] The Home Secretary asks what I think the clause does. It does not deal with the "or other belief" alternative. Previous legislation has widened the definition of religion to do that. Many people think that is right because some have a strong philosophical belief, although they may not call it a religion.

Chris Bryant: The hon. Gentleman referred to the blasphemy laws. The common law offence of blasphemy or blasphemous libel specifically tries to identify what religion is or, in fact, what is good as opposed to bad religion. Surely that is the problem with the blasphemy laws and the strength of this clause. It does not define what is good religion and bad religion, but deals simply with the problem of incitement to hatred of people on the basis of their religious belief.

Simon Hughes: The hon. Gentleman may recall from our debates on Second Reading that my party has believed for a long time that the offence of blasphemy should come off the statute book. Therefore, we are sympathetic to the new clause tabled by the right hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson). We do not, however, think that the Bill is the right place to do that—in that respect we share the view of the Home Secretary. In a few moments I shall explain our view that there are two main reasons why we should put aside such provisions today, concentrate on anti-terrorism measures, properly defined, and return in a careful and considered way to deal both with offences of religious hatred and discrimination on the one hand and, on the other, with hate offences generally, which do not stop at religion or race.

Denzil Davies: Although I agree in general with the gist of the hon. Gentleman's argument, he might be surprised to hear that, on the question of religion and what it means, British courts have found it easy to define and describe religion. It is defined as a belief in a supreme being or a God and a worship of that supreme being or God. Whether the platonic first cause comes into it may be something for the philosophers to discuss.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman is correct. Indeed, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) has tabled an amendment that would ensure that religion was thus clearly defined. All those facts add to the argument that we need to get the measure right. We need to establish what we think the law currently is and to think about whether it is sufficient; we need to decide whether that law will cover people who proclaim their own faith; and we need to ensure that we are clear about whether we want it to be related to belief in the supernatural. We must also decide whether the law should cover faith—or the lack of it—that has nothing to do with religion.
	If people outside this place, or the Government, honestly believe that Parliament can come to a wise judgment on all those matters, and others, in a couple of hours, we are not honouring the many people of much greater intellect, theology or philosophy than us who have been wrestling with those problems for hundreds and hundreds of years.

Gerald Kaufman: Is it not a fact that when we talk about religion and knowing what religion is, it is like the famous mot about describing a camel? We may not be able easily to describe a camel, but we know what it is when we see one. Broad definitions are often the best thing in law. For example, until the Conservative Government got rid of the public interest defence in the Official Secrets Act 1911, that defence was an extraordinarily good one, due to the fact that it was not defined. If it had been defined, it is extremely unlikely that Clive Ponting would have been acquitted by a sensible jury after an onerous prosecution. The hon. Gentleman really ought to think a great deal more carefully about that before he proceeds.

Simon Hughes: I do not dissent from the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I do not think that Liberal Democrat or Conservative Members are arguing that one needs a long and complex definition of religion. No one in the debate—

Mike Gapes: The hon. Gentleman is arguing that.

Simon Hughes: Absolutely not. People are arguing, and we are clearly arguing, that legislation on terrorism is not the place to try to deal with certain matters to do with religion—namely, incitement to religious hatred—or to deal with blasphemy or the much wider issue of the equal treatment of all religions and people of faith. For years, people of minority faiths have been campaigning for a big item on the political agenda: legislation against religious discrimination. It would be much better to deal with all those matters in one go and in one measure, rather than introducing partial provisions in a Bill where they do not belong.

Gerald Kaufman: I shall try not to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again—partly because I hope to catch your eye, Sir Alan, and to speak in the debate. However, the hon. Gentleman is seriously mistaken in his belief that the Bill is not an appropriate vehicle. The package of legislation that the Home Secretary is introducing is a consequence of 11 September. If I am called to speak, I shall attempt to demonstrate why, despite the fact that the proposed legislation is in any case overdue, it is especially necessary as a consequence of 11 September.

Simon Hughes: Of course, the right hon. Gentleman may use that argument, and he may not be persuaded by me, but I refer him to the Select Committee on Home Affairs, which addressed this matter last week. That all-party Committee, which is chaired by one of his colleagues, was not persuaded that this was an appropriate time to legislate and warned us not to proceed down that road. The Chairman of the Committee is in his place and can correct me, but I can cite the paragraph of the Committee's advice to Parliament. With respect to the right hon. Gentleman, it is also wrong to say that this matter has been on the agenda only since 11 September. It has certainly been on the agenda for a long time, so to link it with events that occurred on or subsequent to 11 September seems to be entirely inappropriate as well.

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman may not be aware of this, but as I serve on the Home Affairs Committee, I asked the Under–Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes), whether the Government had considered the option of abolishing the blasphemy laws. Many hon. Members think that that would be the right way to level the playing field, and she specifically said that, along with the other necessary issues, that would be
	"outside the scope of an anti-terrorism bill."
	Is not that the point to make? We cannot consider the broad-based solution that many of us want because it is outside the scope of the Bill and, as a result, we should not consider this issue at all.

Simon Hughes: That is a very strong argument, and I want to tell the Committee about the remaining three arguments as to why we ought not to proceed now. First, incitement to racial hatred is already an offence and incitement to religious hatred will be made an offence under the Bill, but, as is made clear in an amendment that my hon. Friends and I have tabled, pressure has been put on Parliament for a long time to legislate and make incitement to other forms of hatred an offence, perhaps on the basis of gender, sexual orientation or other issues. Parliament may decide that it is far better to introduce legislation on incitement to hatred in which the categories are not defined or in which all the obvious categories are listed, rather than legislating in one decade against incitement to religious hatred, legislating in a second decade against incitement to racial hatred and in another decade against incitement to some other form of hatred. There is a strong argument for dealing with all those issues together and at the same time.
	The second argument is that hon. Members may think that we will leave ourselves unable to respond to people who are concerned that the law does not protect them, but that is not true. A series of laws already exists on the statute book which forbids inciting people to do various things. Incitement to violence is already illegal, as is incitement to cause criminal damage. The authorities can prosecute people under a realm of offences.
	The third reason is that our colleagues have recently set a good precedent. In considering how to respond to the Home Secretary's proposals, the Scottish Executive agreed a fortnight ago that, rather than including such provisions in a similar Bill, they would consult the faith groups in Scotland, the police, the Commission for Racial Equality and the political parties. Although they may wish to legislate and understand the need to legislate, they want to get it right. They want to legislate carefully, rather than legislating precipitately, and they want to take more time than we are being permitted.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way throughout his speech, but I wonder whether he can help me. I listened carefully to the exchange between him and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). If a Muslim religious leader were to use religious arguments to persuade a young British Muslim to fight in Afghanistan against whatever troops were there, possibly including United Kingdom troops, on the grounds of religious conviction, would the hon. Gentleman regard that as acceptable?

Simon Hughes: That is a difficult question. It is not acceptable for a British citizen to fight against those fighting in the name of our country who are trying to bring order and democracy to another part of the world. However, we have to examine the language to determine whether someone was inciting someone else. If someone argued from a profound belief that the Koran justified a certain action, he would not be guilty unless he intended to bring about the violent activity that the hon. Gentleman described. However, if that person intended to cause another person to act violently, he would be guilty and he would be caught by an offence that already exists.
	My point is that such offences are already on the statute book. First, we have the incitement offences that I have mentioned and we also have the extra offences that Parliament has put on the statute book in the last two years under the Terrorism Act 2000. Certain acts are now offences even if they relate to activities that take place abroad. Therefore, the law provides us with plenty of opportunities to prosecute without the need for this additional offence.

Gerald Howarth: If the hon. Gentleman's argument is correct, why have none of the Muslim clerics to whom the hon. Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth) referred been prosecuted for openly encouraging what amounts to sedition? I suspect that the Government have not taken action because they feel that they do not have the powers to take it.

Simon Hughes: I do not know the factual answer to that question. However, I tabled a question a couple of months ago to ask how many offences of incitement to racial hatred had been prosecuted and taken to court under the Race Relations Act 1976. Before the election in my constituency, there were some marches by members of the extreme right who appeared to me to use language that was clearly an incitement to racial hatred. The answer I received was that, since the mid-1980s, an average of about half a dozen offences had been prosecuted across the whole of England and Wales each year.
	That raises a question. Even though the offences are on the statute book, why are there so few prosecutions? Therefore, if we are to legislate for this offence, it has been suggested that we should amend the Bill so that an annual report is made to Parliament to list the decisions of the Attorney-General and explain why he has made them. We would then know whether the law was being enforced adequately.
	This exchange has shown that the Committee must consider all sorts of issues. Liberal Democrats believe that the blasphemy law should go and that we should have an equality Act that guarantees all the faiths equality and does not protect only certain faiths from discrimination, as is the case under the current race relations legislation. For example, it protects Sikhs and Jews but not Muslims. Liberal Democrats also believe that, if we were to create an offence of incitement to hatred, it would be better to do so by creating a general incitement offence that covered all the issues, and did not pick off just one of them and legislate for that with the intention of returning to the others later.
	The Scots have set us a very good example. They have said, "Proceed gently, don't legislate now, take the clause out of the Bill and return to the issue once the Bill is on the statute book." I hope that we will follow their advice

Frank Dobson: The hon. Gentleman seems to be suggesting that we have come to a precipitate conclusion in introducing an offence of incitement to religious hatred. Is he aware that the Law Commission canvassed the possibility as long ago as 1985? Sixteen years is a long period for precipitate action.

Simon Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman made that point the other day. In reality, the Law Commission argued for that proposal in a way that suggests that there had been measured consideration. However, it has never argued that the offence should be introduced suddenly in the context of another Bill. It has never argued that the proposal should be linked to anti-terrorism legislation or that it should be dealt with by emergency legislation that is guillotined and timetabled. It has never argued that it should not be dealt with in the context of all the other considerations related to this issue.

Tam Dalyell: Some Scots give good advice and some give bad advice.

Simon Hughes: That characteristic can be attributed, without discrimination, to people of every nationality. I note that in this case the approach appears to be based on the common advice of at least two parties in Scotland and, I think, is supported by the other two main parties. That does not mean that it is right, but it has united people there far more than it has here.

Caroline Flint: rose—

Annabelle Ewing: rose—

Simon Hughes: I am trying to conclude my remarks, but I will give way.

Caroline Flint: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that when we have previously discussed defining racial hatred as a crime, many said that it was unnecessary because we had enough laws to deal with that problem? Is it not the case that we are going through a period of uncertainty and possible terror in which religion has become an issue? Mosques have been attacked in many constituencies, and in Yorkshire places of Christian worship have also been attacked. It is right that we define that form of hatred in such important times.

Simon Hughes: I respect the hon. Lady's view, but I disagree with her. I have served on Committees and participated in other debates in which we have tried to get hate crimes—religious hate crimes, gay hate crimes and so on—on to the statute book, but the Government of the day have said that the time was not right or appropriate. The issue is not new. I accept the point raised by the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and supported by, I think, the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), from his professional experience. It is not as if there are no laws on the statute book which we could be using.
	My constituency has a large community that is made up of minority faiths as, no doubt, does the hon. Lady's constituency. Of course I want to ensure that those people are protected, but that is not what we are debating. I have talked in detail to people from those faiths and asked them what they want and need most to give them the maximum protection. The maximum protection will come from legislation that treats all faiths equally, that does not give protection to a denomination of one faith and that ensures that the law is clear and does not restrict the freedom of speech, as some people fear might happen. There is nothing between us on that, but should we rush through legislation that might be subject to row, division and wrong construction later?
	I have asked many people about this problem, as I am bound to do, and few have said, "Let's put this on the statute book now. It's been around for a long time." Let us get it right if we are to legislate. I give the Home Secretary an undertaking that my colleagues in both Houses and I will facilitate time for legislation on such matters in this Session after the new year, provided that we have a proper inquiry first on how to draft legislation so that it receives the widest agreement in Parliament.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Simon Hughes: I want to conclude my remarks. I hope that the Committee will proceed carefully, listen to the voices outside and follow the example of our Scottish colleagues. I hope that it will at least support our amendment but, if not, that it will make a more effective contribution by removing clause 38.

Gerald Kaufman: I fear that the debate shows all the signs of developing into one of those cosy little discussions in the House of Commons that bear little relationship to the reality outside. What is more, the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) is using what Hugh Dalton used to call the doctrine of unripe time, in which all sorts of things need to be done and it is a good idea to do them, but not just yet. My argument is that this is the moment to act. With all respect to the hon. Gentleman, whose sincerity I do not question, when he uses the phrase "those in the minority faiths" he shows how unrealistic the debate is.
	The House of Commons should take a look at itself. What does it consist of? It consists overwhelmingly of white Christians. Some people may think, "I am white, and if I were in the Army I would be described as C of E, but I am not a Christian." They may think of themselves as an agnostic, an atheist or a humanist. However, it is very easy indeed for white Christians to say that they are an agnostic, an atheist or a humanist, but although Jews, Muslims or Hindus can decide within their convictions that they are an agnostic, an atheist or a humanist, to everybody else they will still be a Jew, a Muslim or a Hindu.
	I happen to be an observant Jew, but if I were to declare myself an atheist, people who may wish to hate me, apart from any personal dislike of me—

David Winnick: There would not be many of those, would there?

Gerald Kaufman: Practically none, but one cannot rule out the possibility. Anybody who wished to hate me would still look at me as a Jew. I have experienced anti-semitism in this very Chamber. Alec Douglas-Home, when he was Foreign Secretary and there was a controversy about war in the middle east, said that I was more loyal to Israel than I was to England—something that I do not think could be said about me today. During a heated debate, a Conservative Member for Eastbourne, Sir Charles Taylor, told me to get back to Jerusalem. Whether or not I want to be a Jew, I am a Jew, and because of that, I can be hated as a Jew. My hon. Friends—and many more people outside the Chamber—who are Muslim or Hindu or of other minority faiths can have humanist views but they will be hated outside the House, by those who are inclined to hate them, as Muslims, Hindus or members of minority faiths.

Jon Trickett: Is not my right hon. Friend confusing ethnicity, in relation to which incitement to hatred is already forbidden in law, with a belief system or religion? It seems to me that it is possible to be a white European Muslim or an Asian Muslim. Jewishness is different, and many people are of Jewish faith and Jewish ethnicity.

Gerald Kaufman: That is the last thing I am doing. After the number of years that I have lived, I am pretty clear about my ethnicity and my religion. I am British; I was born in this country. Heaven only knows what blood goes into the final mix that makes me up. I am not talking about ethnicity. I talked about ethnicity in 1986, when I tried without success to persuade the then Conservative Government to introduce an offence of racial harassment, and in 1994, when I tried again and a later Conservative Government refused.
	I know that my hon. Friend's intervention is well intentioned, but there is no confusion in my mind about ethnicity versus religion. I am talking about religion, not ethnicity. Over the years, when I was at school and at other times, I have been the object of anti-semitism, although happily it does not happen very much now. My ethnicity was never the reason for that anti-semitism because my ethnicity is British; my religion was the reason for it.
	I ask the Home Secretary under no circumstances to be persuaded to withdraw the measure from the Bill, because it is well overdue. We should legislate against incitement to religious hatred in the same way as this Government, as soon as they came to office, legislated against racial harassment—very belatedly indeed.

Evan Harris: rose—

Edward Garnier: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I will certainly give way to both hon. Gentlemen, but I shall continue my argument for a moment.
	When I intervened on the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey and said that the provision was especially relevant to a package of legislation after 11 September, I did so advisedly. A lady in my constituency, whom I will not name as I do not have permission to do so, is a Muslim and is active in Muslim causes in my constituency; she has always taken part in a great many community causes. She is the equivalent of an orthodox Jew; she veils part of her face and will not shake people's hands, but she is an active member of the wider community. On 12 September, she went into a shop in central Manchester, but was turned out and told that she would not be served because she was a Muslim. It is intolerable that people should be subject to that kind of hatred without any recourse whatever to the law.

Neil Gerrard: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: I shall do so in a minute.
	Before I represented Manchester, Gorton, I was a candidate for the Ardwick constituency. The Conservative party distributed a leaflet among Muslim constituents saying that I was a Zionist—not to arouse ethnic or racial hatred against me, but to arouse religious hatred; they were trying to persuade Muslims that it was not a good idea to vote for a Jew. The Muslims had a much broader vision than the Conservative party in the Ardwick constituency.
	There ought not to be religious hatred in this country, but the fact is that it exists, and we must acknowledge that. The aftermath of 11 September has made that much clearer, but has also meant that it has to be dealt with. Over the years, the Jewish community has witnessed people like David Irving talking about holocaust denial. As Billy Wilder said,
	"If there was no holocaust, where is my mother?"
	We have had to deal not only with that but with Jewish cemeteries being desecrated—not because of Jewish ethnicity but because people wish to arouse hatred of Jews. In my constituency and those of a number of hon. Members, we have had to deal with attacks on mosques, which are religious buildings. The Eileen Grove mosque in my constituency was firebombed.

Lorna Fitzsimons: As a fellow Greater Manchester MP, my right hon. Friend will know that the British National party has been active in Burnley which, thankfully, we held at the election. The BNP is concentrating on dividing communities by playing on Islamophobia; it is arousing religious hatred among Sikhs and the indigenous white population against the Muslim population, thus using people's religion, not their culture. Will my right hon. Friend comment on that?

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend makes an extremely important point on which I can elaborate. Such is the bigotry, evil and ignorance of people who arouse religious hatred that they have attacked Sikhs because they wear turbans. They think that they are Muslims; so lacking are they in their understanding of Muslims that they believe all Muslims wear turbans. As a result, Sikhs have been victims of religious hatred. The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that we needed a definition and a much clearer law. Heaven only knows—and the hon. Gentleman made the point inadvertently—our laws against racial hatred are far from oppressive. Indeed, they are rarely used, which is why I asked my right hon. Friend, when he made a statement foreshadowing the Bill, to make sure that the Attorney-General was in charge, because the Crown Prosecution Service cannot be relied on. We have got what I asked for from my right hon. Friend—and, heaven knows, the Attorney-General will not bring random, gratuitous, frivolous prosecutions; there is no doubt whatever about that.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I will give way to all those who want to intervene when I have finished this paragraph, as it were.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey said that the provision would catch comedians. I do not want to get comedians, but I ask the House to consider the matter carefully. Although it would be doing Bernard Manning far too much credit to prosecute him, let us remember the sort of things that he has been saying and doing, including creating a situation in which black people listening to him have to laugh at his jokes for fear of not joining in the joke. Even comedians ought not to believe that they can incite religious and racial hatred and get away with it.
	My right hon. Friend is right to limit the provision to the remit of the Attorney-General. Because of that, and because of the good sense of juries—shown, for example, in the Ponting case—we need not fear that militant atheists or humanists will be sent to jail for saying that they are not believers or for disagreeing with believers.

Neil Gerrard: I thank my right hon. Friend for giving way. May I return to the story that he told about the woman who was turned out of a shop? She was discriminated against on the basis of her religion, but is it not true that the Bill would not deal with that?

Gerald Kaufman: If my hon. Friend is suggesting that the legislation ought to be wider, perhaps he has a point. Let us get the Bill on the statute book; then we can look at the possibility of widening it. The fact that my hon. Friend believes that the Bill is inadequate, rather than too oppressive, is an argument for passing it and building on it.

Evan Harris: As a non-religious, secular, ethnic Jew, I have been listening carefully to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) had a mañana approach to the matter, but that is not the case. A plea for an equality Act with a general hate crime measure was in our manifesto. My hon. Friend has said that we want to consider that as soon as possible, outwith emergency legislation.
	Homophobic hate crimes have been occurring for decades and have affected the majority of people who identify themselves as homosexual. There has been no protection. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman will find that he voted against a provision allowing for a homophobic hate crime during consideration of the Crime and Disorder Bill in 1998, and that he did so with his Government, who said that they would introduce such a measure soon. Such things do not happen unless the relevant measures are introduced all together, in a considered way. I urge the right hon. Gentleman to reflect on that approach.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman may call himself, and no doubt he sincerely is, a non-religious, secular Jew, but Hitler would still have put him in an oven.

Evan Harris: I agree.

Gerald Kaufman: In the same way, the hon. Gentleman may be a non-religious, secular Jew, but he could well be the object of incitement to religious hatred, because those who do not like Jews would consider him a Jew, whether he wants to be one or not.

Gerald Howarth: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. He has a fertile imagination. I therefore invite him to imagine being the Attorney- General in whose power it lay to bring actions of the kind envisaged by the Bill. Given the huge range of examples that the right hon. Gentleman has given, extending from clerics to Bernard Manning, does he not envisage courts sitting all day, every day, dealing with his catalogue of complaints about hatred? Can he identify where his priorities would lie were he Attorney-General?

Gerald Kaufman: If I were Attorney-General, it would be a great innovation, as I am not a lawyer. We are not dealing with my predilections, and I would not wish to bring a huge torrent of prosecutions. If we have the provision on the statute book, as I very much trust we will, it will be some protection—not an impermeable protection—to those who are subject to religious hatred. I recognise the hon. Gentleman's decency and sincerity, but I say to him, as I said when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made his original statement, that it is very easy to be theoretical if one has not been on the receiving end.

Gordon Prentice: I want to be clear about where my right hon. Friend is coming from. Many Muslims in my constituency were outraged by the publication of Salman Rushdie's "The Satanic Verses". The book provoked disorder and many people saw it as inciting racial hatred. Am I right in thinking that my right hon. Friend would agree with the prosecution of Salman Rushdie on the grounds that his work produced that hatred?

Gerald Kaufman: To the great misfortune of the entire House, my hon. Friend was not a Member of Parliament when "The Satanic Verses" issue arose. I was an extremely strong opponent of any action against Salman Rushdie—except on literary grounds, as I think he is a very bad novelist; if I have a single achievement in life, it is that I prevented his inclusion on the Booker prize shortlist in the year when I was chairman of the Booker judges.
	I do not believe that bigotry should prevent free speech. Salman Rushdie was stating a view of the life of the prophet Mohammed to which many Muslims took exception. I told Muslims who came to see me that free speech required that Salman Rushdie should be allowed to publish his novels without interruption. My good friend Roy Hattersley took the view that the paperback should not be issued—a sort of compromise on his part. The same applies to Martin Scorsese's not very good film, "The Last Temptation of Christ". I disagreed with the Catholic Church when it tried to get that film banned. I was also against the banning of a play about Jews that was shown at the Royal Court theatre. I am strongly in favour of freedom of speech, even though it may offend large numbers of people. That is very different from believing that there is a place on the statute book for a law that makes incitement to religious hatred an offence.

Patrick Cormack: rose—

Gerald Kaufman: I shall give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I want to finish, as other hon. Members want to speak.

Patrick Cormack: The right hon. Gentleman is civilised, urbane, witty and sensitive. As he is all those things, he has just given an extremely sensitive and witty answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice). However, if we introduce the Bill in its current form and in such precipitate haste, he is likely to be landed with a Dangerous Dogs-type Bill that has been rushed through the House without proper and thorough consideration: a dead letter and a pretty useless measure. I do not necessarily disagree with the right hon. Gentleman in his desire for an effective law. Indeed, I agree, of course, with all that he said about the persecution of the Jews. However, we need to consider a draft Bill in depth and to take our time—and that does not mean taking an eternity.

Gerald Kaufman: As the hon. Gentleman knows, I have a great deal of respect for him, but I must say that I simply disagree with his view, which, again, is based on doctrine of unripe time. If we can get the Bill on the statute book, all hon. Members' wisdom and drafting abilities can be employed in reconsidering it. We know that it will be renewable. It is not the last word, but as a firm interim word, there is a great deal to be said for it.

David Winnick: This discussion almost resembles a teach-in, as we would have called it in the 1960s. Although there may be a case for the measures in respect of Muslims, as my right hon. Friend and others have suggested, did he not undermine his own case when he referred to Jews and anti-semitism? He said that the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) would have been murdered regardless of his not having a religion. That is a matter of race. It is race that is the subject of discrimination and other such actions, so one would have thought that the proper remedy was to strengthen laws on incitement to racial hatred.

Gerald Kaufman: I disagree with my hon. Friend. The Jews are not a race. Many people believe they are, but they are not. They are a religious group.

David Winnick: No.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend and I can have a philosophical discussion about the matter outside the Chamber. When I have been attacked by anti-semites, it has not been for what they regard as my race but because I am a Jew.

David Winnick: Exactly, not because of your religion.

Gerald Kaufman: Yes. I am a religious Jew, but even if I, like the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon, were not, it would not let me off.

David Winnick: It is a matter of race.

Gerald Kaufman: It would not let my hon. Friend off either.

Chris Bryant: Surely that shows why the provisions that we are considering are so important. The law has determined that Jews are protected because they are an ethnic grouping or because their ethnicity and religion coincide significantly. However, the protection that my right hon. Friend and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) might enjoy is not afforded to Muslims.

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right, as I would expect. The law as it stands would protect Elizabeth Taylor, who is a Jew by conversion and a citizen of this country; she is now Dame Elizabeth Taylor. She would be protected under the current legal definition of Jewish, but not if she had been born a Jew and was religious. I have disagreed with one or two hon. Members, but agreed with more. I agree entirely with my hon. Friend the Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) and this therefore seems an appropriate moment at which to sit down.

Brian Mawhinney: I listened with the usual pleasure to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), although I did not agree with everything that he said. I hope that he will forgive me if I do not pursue his more general argument about the Bill.
	Not least because of lack of time, I want to stick to a narrow point, which I raised with the Home Secretary on 19 November. It dealt with the declaration of the belief systems of Christians, Jews and Muslims. I was prompted to table amendment No. 106 because I believe that the Committee should make a decision about the matter and also because of the Home Secretary's reply.
	As Hansard shows, the Home Secretary had taken many interventions before mine on detention generally. It was characteristic of his replies that he went to great lengths to try to explain the reasons for his disagreement with those who intervened on him. However, he gave me a short reply; his answer was "unequivocally no." The more I thought about it, the more I wondered whether he had understood my point. I believe that he would have given me a longer answer if he had understood.
	I want to explain the importance, in my judgment, of amendment No. 106. On Second Reading, the Secretary of State also said:
	"To be prosecuted, the power has to be used against the perpetration of threatening, abusive or insulting words or behaviour with—this is the crucial phrase—the intention and likelihood that racial hatred would be stirred up. "—[Official Report, 19 November 2001; Vol. 375, c. 35.]
	He referred to "insulting words or behaviour" and to "intention and likelihood".
	When I was in Belfast at the weekend, my mind went to the announcement of what we all hope is the permanent resolution of the problems at Holy Cross primary school, where one group of people, plainly on the strength of their religious views, acted in a way that caused a predictable reaction from others of a different religious persuasion. In applying his test of intention and likelihood, would the Home Secretary have judged that the behaviour of one part of the community around Holy Cross school would have been likely to produce the reaction that it did? In other words, would there have been sufficient evidence available to him that he could, without too much doubt, have predicted what the reaction would have been in the circumstances?
	The issue is not one of who was right and who was wrong. One of the characteristics of Northern Ireland not much drawn to the attention of the Committee or the House is that, over great swathes of the Province, those who attend Protestant churches and those who attend Catholic churches live together in peace, harmony and good community. There is also, however, plenty of evidence that others do not.
	I put it to the Home Secretary that there are fundamental and irreconcilable differences at the heart of the Christian, Jewish and Muslim faiths. Christians believe that Jesus was the son of God—that he was God and man. Jews do not believe that, and nor do Muslims. Both, particularly Muslims, would hold Jesus in high regard—they would refer to him as a prophet—but on the issue of deity, there is a deep divide. Flowing from that, there is a further deep divide about how men and women can enter into a right relationship with God.
	It is no secret that I am a practising Christian, but for the avoidance of doubt I state it again. Equally, it is no secret that, in my constituency over the years, I have had excellent relations with all the many immigrant groups that form the community of Peterborough. I have been in mosques and temples, and I am welcome in all the communities.
	I do not wish to make a narrow, bigoted point to the Committee. I wish to make a point about the declaration of the fundamentals of what people believe. I have framed my amendment very carefully. It refers to religious belief, but does not specify it. It provides that if someone declares the fundamentals of what they believe and what causes them to move into a mode of worship within that belief system, however that is reflected and defined, that of itself is not an offence.
	I take a slightly less generous view of a minority in our society than does the Liberal Democrat spokesman, for I have experience of people who, for their own malign reasons, use statements as an excuse to create difficulty and trouble. We have seen that all over the country. Indeed, in the urban part of my constituency, a British National party march was banned by the Home Secretary on Saturday, because there was reason to believe that, in some sense, what concerns us today might be played out on the streets of that metropolis.
	There is on Good Friday in Peterborough a march of witness of Christians from all denominations, and they have an open-air service in the Guildhall square. As the service takes place on Good Friday, it will not surprise the Committee to hear that the importance of Jesus Christ, who he was and his death are at its centre.
	I regret to tell the Committee that I could be persuaded that, among the other groups that live in the city, there may be found enough irresponsible people who, at the edges of that service, might find occasion to behave in an unacceptable and illegal way and that they might blame their being offended on having heard insulting words. Therefore, the person declaring nothing but the central tenets of the Christian faith would be put under the spotlight as having spoken in an insulting way likely to cause offence, even though the consequences were not necessarily the result of what was said.

David Blunkett: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, because his remarks are of considerable interest. I have considered his amendment closely, but surely his example falls in any case within the definition of the aggravated offence. In other words, the individual committing the offence falls within the definition of "aggravated" on the ground that they would be considered to have acted in such a way on the back of an event that, as it happens, does not fall within the range of incitement. Is it not a fact that his party and, I believe, his Front Benchers favour the aggravated offence remaining?

Brian Mawhinney: I do not want to have a row with the Home Secretary—I am trying to be helpful to the Bill—but I think that he has misunderstood. As I read the Bill, the circumstance that I described would leave the speaker at the service open to the charge of being likely to cause offence by saying something that others, who disagree fundamentally with it, used as an excuse to behave inappropriately.

Patrick Cormack: Is not my right hon. Friend's case made also by reference to the second collect for Good Friday, which is still in the Book of Common Prayer? It can still be said at services and it refers to Jews, infidels, Turks and heretics.

Brian Mawhinney: Over many years in the House, I have learned always to defer to my hon. Friend when it comes to the Book of Common Prayer.

Edward Garnier: I think that my right hon. Friend's concern would be dealt with by the power given to the Attorney-General to withhold consent to prosecution. I cannot envisage a situation such as that described by my right hon. Friend in which the Attorney-General would permit a prosecution under the Bill. The problem with amendment No. 106 is that, if my right hon. Friend, as a convinced and practising Christian, were to go one Friday evening to Regent's park mosque and interrupt a Muslim service by reciting the creed in the middle of it, he would be outside the realms of prosecution. I am sure that that is not what he contemplates. Although I accept that interrupting a Good Friday service in Guildhall square in Peterborough is theoretically possible, it is unlikely to result in a prosecution. He has opened himself up to the problem of allowing people to interrupt other people's services by expressing their own religious faith.

Brian Mawhinney: I was careful at no point to talk about interrupting the service. I do not agree with my hon. and learned Friend. I want to be careful, not least for the benefit of the Home Secretary, not to make this a Christian point of view against others. I believe, again with regret, that a minority in my community and in communities all over the country may congregate outside mosques after Friday prayers and behave in a similar but reciprocal way, which would put the onus on the Muslim rather than on the Christian.
	I am reminded of the fact that the Home Secretary said "no" unequivocally. He was kind enough to say that he thought that I was making a serious point. I can assure him that my concern about the ambiguity and the risk to which I am drawing attention is not unique to me. If he does not intend to accept my amendment, No. 106, I invite him to tell the Committee that he will introduce an amendment in the other place that does in his words what I am seeking to do in mine. I should like him to say that he will accept my amendment, but I do not pretend to have the drafting skills of the Home Office draftsmen available to him. I would settle, as I think would the Committee, for his assurance that the essence of my amendment will be enshrined in the legislation in the other place.
	The essence of the amendment is that, if someone in good faith recites the fundamentals of his beliefs, no offence will have been committed, whatever may be the consequences of that recitation. I commend that view to the Committee.

Frank Dobson: Some of the arguments that have been put in the Chamber and on television and radio about the Government's sensible and timely—if not belated—proposals to make incitement to religious hatred a crime bear a marked resemblance to the arguments that were put in the 1960s when it was proposed that incitement to racial hatred should be made a crime. The same arguments have been peddled: history shows that they were spurious then, and they are spurious now.
	In the society that we live in today there are victims of religious hatred and religious discrimination. Muslims in particular are victims of that. It is a safe bet that an hour or two ago some Muslim mother collecting her child from primary school was abused, or possibly assaulted, by some lout because she was wearing a veil that revealed, if that is the right word, that she was a Muslim. Such action is unacceptable, and Muslim people find it unacceptable that they are not protected by the legislation against racial discrimination, because that action constitutes religious discrimination. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) pointed out, it is different from what is suffered by people who are Jewish or Sikhs, where religion and ethnicity are combined.
	The Muslim religion is being singled out at present, as anyone who knows anything about what the British National party's collection of racist thugs are doing will know. They are saying to other Asian groups, "You Hindus and Sikhs ought to gang up with us and beat up the Muslims." That is effectively the message that they are putting across. It is an effort based on the promotion of religious hatred, and it is time that we did something about it. Indeed, we should have done something about it before now.

Gerald Howarth: The right hon. Gentleman's case is that a community is being singled out for what are clearly unacceptable practices. I have received serious representations from members of the Hindu community, who say that it is they who are being persecuted by the Muslims. His implication that only the Muslim community is under threat is simply untrue.

Frank Dobson: If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, or if the observations of those to whom he says that he has been listening are true, it is equally unacceptable. I believe in equality before the law. The problem is that we have no crime of incitement to religious hatred. I believe that such a provision would make some people safer, and they are entitled to that additional safety.
	Some have asked whether it is appropriate to introduce such an offence at this time, and in association with this Bill. The fact is that the incidents that we are discussing have become worse. People are suffering domestic terror all over the country: they are threatened on the street and in their homes.
	The hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) seemed to suggest that because not many people had been prosecuted under the racial discrimination legislation, we need make no effort now to make incitement to religious hatred or religious discrimination an offence. I think that we need to get on with it, as I said on Second Reading. We should not downgrade the impact of what we do in this place: changes in the law affect public opinion.

Diane Abbott: rose—

Lorna Fitzsimons: rose—

Frank Dobson: I will not give way for the moment.
	The introduction of the crime of incitement to racial hatred had an impact on what people said and did. Similarly, in an entirely different sphere, the introduction of tougher laws against drunken driving brought about a huge social change. Drunken driving, which used to be socially acceptable when I was a young man, is now socially unacceptable. We must not underestimate the declaratory effect of changes in the law, which is why I support this proposal.
	I have tabled a new clause that is intended to bring about yet greater equality before the law. Its purpose is to end the common law offence of blasphemy, which protects only the Church of England. The law on blasphemy does not protect any other Christian sect from abuse, whereas such abuse could be considered blasphemy if it were directed against the Church of England. Nor does that law offer any protection to any other religious group. As long ago as 1949, Lord Denning described the law as a dead letter, and it is now 16 or 17 years since the Law Commission said that we should get rid of it.
	If we establish an offence of incitement to religious hatred, and if the Government soon come into line with European legislation outlawing religious discrimination, as I understand that they will—that move is both welcome and overdue—no one will need the protection of the blasphemy law.

Diane Abbott: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Frank Dobson: No, I shall not; other hon. Members wish to speak.
	My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has made it clear outside this place that he entirely shares my view and believes that the blasphemy law should be abolished. I therefore urge him to get on with it—he now has the chance. I understand that the Archbishop of Canterbury is against such a move. However, he has a voice and a vote in the House of Lords. Our constitution has never granted the Archbishop of Canterbury a veto on legislation passed by this place. He should do his stuff in the House of Lords if he wants to do something.
	I was asked to ring Lambeth palace, and I thought that I would be given full information on its position. As I understand it, the Archbishop's current position is not that we should repeal the blasphemy law, but that, to achieve equality, we should extend it to all other religions. Those who have reservations about the problems caused by introducing a law on incitement to religious hatred and the relevant definitions may think that this legislation is complicated, but they should try to imagine the problems that would be caused by a blasphemy law that tried to protect all religions equally without substantially reducing freedom of speech.
	The Government did not intend to use the Bill to repeal the blasphemy law, but, as new clause 1 is very short, I cannot see any reason why we should not get on with it. Let us repeal it. The Home Secretary wants us to do it. Today, we could easily give him the opportunity to do what he wants.

Oliver Letwin: The debate so far has brought out a range of arguments on all sides of this difficult issue. I do not want to bore the Committee by recapitulating the points that the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Simon Hughes) well made on the unsatisfactory character of trying to legislate on this difficult matter in this context and at this speed, but I do want to dwell on the substance of the issue, and in particular on the words of clause 38.
	Notwithstanding the well-intentioned remarks by some Labour Members, we are not dealing with an intention. The Home Secretary's intention is noble and justified: to protect vulnerable religious communities. We are also not dealing with outrages, some of which have been described by both Labour and Opposition Members. The House is united in believing that an effort by a shopkeeper to turn away a Muslim—I speak as a Jew, not as a Muslim—is an outrage. We are at one in believing that that is an outrage and should be outlawed. However, clause 38 does not do that. We are also at one in finding despicable the attacks on mosques and churches. They are not only despicable but dangerous to the persistence of a liberal society in Britain. The clause has no effect on those outrages.
	As has been made abundantly clear, we support clause 39, which makes it an aggravated offence if an offence has been committed for a religious purpose. We support that, even in the Bill, because it is relatively uncontroversial in its effect. We are dealing with offences that already exist—as the application by judges has made clear—and we are merely making prison the norm for those offences. That is right where violence, or another offence, has been committed for a religious purpose. What threatens our society is sectarianism, which is worse than the violence or other offence would be otherwise.
	Let there be no misunderstanding—there is no serious, legitimate debate in the Committee this afternoon about whether vulnerable faith communities should be protected. They should. There is no debate about whether vulnerable faith communities are insufficiently protected at present. They are. There is no debate about whether we need to take deliberate steps as a Parliament to remedy those deficits. We do. The problem we face—a problem that it is right to face in Committee, if not at this pace—concerns a set of words that, if the Home Secretary has his way, will be a statute; the law of the land. That will be interpreted by judges in ways that none of us can wholly predict and about which the Home Secretary has been almost wholly silent.
	There is a problem with those words, on which I and the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott)—who, unlike me, is not a Jew, but is black, and with whom I have not always agreed politically—are in agreement. The Committee ought to attend to the fact that some of us, of many different persuasions and backgrounds, have spotted the problem, and the Committee needs to concentrate on that.

Gerald Kaufman: The kind of arguments that the hon. Gentleman is making are almost word for word—certainly sentiment for sentiment—the arguments that were made by Conservative Home Secretaries in 1986 and 1994 when Labour proposed that there should be an offence of racial harassment. On those occasions, the Conservative Government rejected our proposals for the very reasons, and with the same measured phraseology, that the hon. Gentleman is advancing this afternoon. Nevertheless, this Government enacted such an offence in 1998, but all the dreadful, immeasurable consequences about which we were warned by the Conservatives did not come about. If anything, the offence has been sufficiently enforced. As and when the new offence goes on the statute book and is enforced, people such as me will be getting up to say that it is not being used enough, not that it is being used too much or too oppressively.

Oliver Letwin: It is odd that the right hon. Gentleman thinks he knows the argument that I am using, as I had not yet got to my argument against the precise words. However, I can reassure him in advance that it is not the same argument. I happen to be a supporter of the legislation on racial harassment and the measures to aggravate the offence if its cause is religion. The general character of my argument against the words is one that the right hon. Gentleman's speech wholly missed, which is that there is a difference in kind between arguments about religion and statements about race. Until the Committee recognises that difference, it will not make good law.

Diane Abbott: As someone who marched in 1984 and 1986 in support of changing the law on racial hatred, can I say that it is a testimony to the weakness of the drafting of the Bill that hon. Friends who have sought to defend it have wilfully confused racial discrimination with religious discrimination and are obliged to talk about acts of discrimination, whereas the Bill deals with acts of incitement to hatred?

Oliver Letwin: I am afraid that the hon. Lady is entirely right. I wish that I could say otherwise, given the differences that divide us on so many issues.
	Let me try to describe what is wrong with the words in the clause. In general, they make a direct analogy between the disreputable attempt to castigate or to incite hatred against people because of something they cannot alter—their race—and the perfectly legitimate interplay of passionate religious debate in this country. Many of us in the House, myself included, deprecate the use of intemperate language in religious debate. In fact, I deprecate the use of intemperate language in debate, full stop.

Brian Sedgemore: Shame!

Oliver Letwin: That is exactly my point. I deprecate the efforts of people on both sides of the political divide to encourage people to hate those on the other side. I do not join in, but it is legitimate political argument. It is part of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) rightly described as free speech in this country. If Labour Members wish to encourage hatred of me as a Conservative, they are at liberty to do so. Indeed, in the case of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Thatcher, many of them have done so. I do not think that that is the right way to conduct politics, but I reassure them that I do not wish to put them in jail for doing so.
	Religion, like politics, is a matter of argument, and people are intemperate in their expression. Nobody in the Committee is capable of telling us—indeed, the Home Secretary repeatedly fails to tell us—whether the judges will, for example, put in prison a Presbyterian preacher who calls the Pope an anti-Christ, a point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer). There is a general problem with legislation that could lead to the impairment of impassioned religious debate.

Chris Bryant: Intemperate discussion in theology is probably no better than in politics. The annual Good Friday march through the soke of Peterborough was mentioned earlier, when Christians from many denominations gather together. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that it should be an offence if it was decided to photograph everyone on the march, find out their names and addresses and then circulate them so that people could visit their houses with violent intent? That is parallel to what is done by the British National party.

Oliver Letwin: Not only should that be an offence, but I am advised that it is one.
	The problem that we face with these words is not merely general, it is practical. Several Labour Members have rightly said that we should not conduct this debate in abstraction but should attend to what is going on in the country, and I wholeheartedly agree. These words could unintentionally be counterproductive in inflaming sentiments at a time when the country can ill afford it. The Home Secretary intended, perfectly honourably, that the clause should mainly protect Muslims. However, he has rightly acknowledged that it is the tradition of our law that it applies indifferently and equally to all our citizens. Therefore, the first use of these provisions may not be against someone who is acting illegitimately against Muslims, but may be applied to a Muslim. I beg the Committee to ask itself, will that further the cause of dampening the serious fires that are raging in our country, or will it inflame them? That is part of the problem both of enacting legislation at a time when the country is in some turmoil and of enacting legislation that is ill considered.
	If the editor of The Muslim News or one of his writers makes intemperate statements, they may be caught by the measure. In such circumstances, not only will we have an example of the improper curtailment of free speech, but of an action by the state that unintentionally produces the result of further inflaming passions. No one in the Committee can want that result but we have yet to hear the slightest shred of evidence from the Home Secretary that such a result would not follow.

Louise Ellman: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the general drift of his comments—that it may be reasonable to attack or oppose a religion intemperately—is in conflict with his earlier statement that the Committee should take action, which he has not yet defined, to protect vulnerable faith communities?

Oliver Letwin: The hon. Lady and I may simply disagree on the point, but she fails to make the distinction that I make. I do not think that it is reasonable, right or proper for one person to say highly intemperate things about another person's religion, but I make a distinction—the hon. Lady may not—between what I think is reasonable or unreasonable, and what I think ought to lead to people going to jail. The future of free speech in this country rests on that distinction.
	If my argument and that of the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey is right, what are we to do about the situation? I accept that sensitivities are involved and it is important that both Houses respect them. I accept that merely to remove the provisions from the Bill will cause some of those sensitivities to be damaged, so we do not need merely to remove them—we need collectively, across the parties, to commit ourselves to the early introduction of proposals which can gain consensus, will deal with the whole issue of religious discrimination and religious tolerance, will firmly outlaw some of the outrages that have been described and that are not caught by current legislation, and will do so on a basis that we can be confident will not curtail free speech in this country.
	There is a willingness across the parties to engage in that debate. It could be done on a timetable that would permit genuine reflection, and we might get it right. It would of course be an advance—albeit minimal—if the proposition put by my right hon. Friend the Member for North–West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney) were accepted by the Home Secretary. Other amendments might be agreed to ameliorate these clauses. However, the fact is that nothing less than removing them and introducing proper provisions will genuinely solve the problem.

George Howarth: The hon. Gentleman's argument is predicated on the view that some cases would get as far as the Attorney-General, and that some would then get past him and into the courts that should properly never do so. Does he have so little confidence in the office of the Attorney-General and in the courts as to be certain that they would not act as a barrier? Will not the tests that would be applied weed out the cases that he describes?

Oliver Letwin: We have contemplated those questions in some detail. It is perfectly true that applying the brake of the Attorney-General much helps the clause, but the Attorney-General has to make his decisions on a reasonable basis. He has to look at the words of the clause and consider whether they apply. If there is great public pressure from people who want to use the clause to restrain other religious groups from making the statements that they are prone to make, the Attorney-General may find it very difficult reasonably to resist those calls. If the hon. Gentleman tries to place sufficient weight on the Attorney-General's shoulders to achieve the constraint that he seeks, he may put more weight on those shoulders than they can bear.

George Howarth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way to me gain. Far from supporting the argument used by the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey that the clause fails to define what we mean by the word "religion", would not it be better, as the hon. Gentleman is arguing, to define that word simply and allow the courts and the Attorney-General to work on the assumption of the normal understanding of that word, rather than to define it more tightly, as the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey argued earlier on behalf of the Liberal Democrats?

Oliver Letwin: I have not made any argument about definition; I am making an argument about what is likely to be the practical effect of the clause and whether that practical effect has a general consequence that the Committee should be willing to tolerate. That is not to do with definitions; it has to do with the fact that it is extraordinarily difficult to disentangle legitimate, though intemperate, religious debate from actions or words that the Committee would genuinely wish to become the subject of imprisonment. If the issue were not so difficult, as with race, we would not have this problem; but it is so difficult that neither the Attorney-General nor the courts can possibly be expected constantly to observe the distinction in a way that will preserve free speech in this country.

Gerald Kaufman: In the hon. Gentleman's response to my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North and Sefton, East (Mr. Howarth), he seemed to be entirely unaware of the way in which prosecutions are brought. The police bring cases to the Crown Prosecution Service, but the CPS does not necessarily agree to prosecute because it will bring a prosecution only if it believes that there is a reasonable possibility of conviction. The Attorney-General will deal with that issue even more cautiously than the CPS, so that is my response to what the hon. Gentleman says to my hon. Friend.
	When I intervened on the hon. Gentleman earlier, he said that I had done so too soon and that I might not have said what I said then if I had listened to his whole argument. The arguments that he adduces against the proposed new offence continue to be pretty well identical to those used on the Conservative Front Bench against the creation of the offence of racial harassment that we proposed, with the exception that he now proposes a compromise and a consensus with the Government. The Opposition did not do that when in government because they would never have proposed a consensus with those then in opposition. It is very easy for an Opposition to propose a consensus when the Government—

Sylvia Heal: Order. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman is aware that interventions should be brief.

Oliver Letwin: Thank you, Mrs. Heal.
	The right hon. Gentleman was present then, but perhaps I have the advantage over him of having re-read over the weekend what my right hon. and hon. Friends said. If he has done so as well, he will have observed that they did not argue that it was legitimate to make intemperate attacks on people because of their race. I am arguing that although I deprecate those people, it is a legitimate part of free speech for someone to seek to incite hatred against the Moonies because of what they have done to children. I am not saying that people should seek to do so, or that it would be reasonable or morally right for people to seek to incite others in such circumstances; I am saying that they should not be put in jail for so doing. If the clause was correctly interpreted by the authorities, it would tend to have the effect of putting those people in jail because the Moonies would count as a religion. If the right hon. Gentleman refuses to come to terms with that signal difference, he is not doing a service to the Committee.

Tam Dalyell: Does the matter not depend on who the Attorney-General is? Attorneys-General are human, and some of us would like Attorneys-General to be in the House of Commons rather than in the House of Lords. However, that is another issue. Does the hon. Gentleman think that, for example, Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller would have given the same answer as Sir Michael Havers or Sir Elwyn Jones? The answer is probably not.

Oliver Letwin: As so often, the hon. Gentleman has a long enough historical memory to realise the falsity of the suggestion that Attorneys-General are an undifferentiated species. Of course he is right to say that there would be different judgments. However, beyond that, the Committee surely does not want to bring about a situation in which an officer of the Crown would be called upon to judge what is compatible with free speech in this country. That is so fundamental a judgment that it surely falls to Parliament to construct law that is not so ambiguous that it requires that kind of administrative discretion.

Mark Francois: My hon. Friend mentioned the Moonies. Do not such groups have aggressive lawyers at their disposal? If the Bill is passed in its current form, such groups are very likely to use their lawyers to try to prevent their activities from being legitimately criticised.

Oliver Letwin: That is a fear; my hon. Friend is right. Furthermore, under the current circumstances of the nation, I fear that others with evil intent may seek to foster prosecutions of, for example, Muslims. It would be a tragic irony if the Committee and the Government were to create the circumstances that allowed the least reputable elements in our society—those who want to foster disharmony—to be able to do so by means of this clause.

David Wilshire: My hon. Friend cited the case of the Moonies. Does he agree that a religious group that advocates sexual intercourse between adults and young children needs to be hounded by us all rather than protected by this Bill?

Oliver Letwin: My hon. Friend raises another serious problem.

David Blunkett: Let us stop this silliness.

Oliver Letwin: I beg the Home Secretary to consider a distinction. No one is suggesting—least of all me—that it is his intention to prevent sensible people from taking sensible action and making sensible statements about certain sects. Of course that is not his intention. However, I am trying to call his attention to the fact that the clause, as drafted, may have that untoward effect. I do not believe that the House has had anything like the sufficient time to consider whether what I am saying is right or wrong—and the country has certainly not had anything like sufficient time. Rather than rushing into legislation, we need to consider whether these risks exist in practice. I earnestly believe that they do.

Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman refers to the role of the Attorney-General. Does he accept that the Attorney-General may be subject to considerable political pressures on such issues, especially as the Bill, as drafted, means that it will be possible to be prosecuted for saying things about people anywhere in the world? That is the effect of clauses 36 and 37.

Oliver Letwin: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. I do not suggest that the current Attorney-General would allow himself to be persuaded by such pressures, but the construction of the clause could, over time, have that effect. That would be wrong.
	I have said enough, and perhaps too much. It is essential that the Committee divide on these clauses. The Government will try to command their forces to push these clauses through and that is their right as the elected Government. However, I hope that the provisions will be checked in another place and that the Government will genuinely listen to the arguments. Notwithstanding the remarks of the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton, I hope that we will have the opportunity to establish a consensus on something that should not be a matter of dispute between the political parties. The harmony of our society depends so completely on achieving consensus on such issues.

David Blunkett: The debate has addressed the issues directly and sensitively, and I hope it will continue to do so, while exploring the possible difficulties in applying the law. The Sunday Telegraph was not correct, and I want to make it clear that I have no intention of withdrawing the clauses. As I said last Monday and Wednesday, I am intent on listening and responding to positive suggestions on how to improve the legislation.
	If a review of the clauses over the next two years would assist and if the two main Opposition parties were genuine in their claims to take that seriously, we would be in business, but we will get nowhere if we are concerned only with referring to the most enormous public kerfuffle, with which I shall deal in a moment, on inserting in legislation something that was intended to be a simple addition to incorporate religion in the incitement to race hate. It is our aim to ensure that the addition is simple and straightforward so that we incorporate a particular aspect that has been debated for a long time—the Law Commission, for instance, has been mentioned in that regard. We are trying to protect those who find themselves less protected under existing legislation than those for whom jurisprudence has determined that their race and religion are covered by the law. It is particular groups, under the Public Order Act 1986 and within public order in general, that we are dealing with today.
	Over the past few weeks, and in particular the past few days, I have heard and read enough nonsense about the Bill and its implications to last a lifetime. It seems to go like this: think of an absurd allegation and extend it; add a little bile, print it at great length, watch it expand until people are really worried, and sit back and watch the implications grow; then move on to something else. We saw it last week with clause 17 and we see it in relation to the incitement of religious hatred.
	There was tremendous support for including religion in the legislation, which can be checked in the cuttings, until Rowan Atkinson—God bless him—wrote to The Times—[Hon. Members: "Oh no."] I suggest that hon. Members go to the Library and take a look at what was said. There was an immediate reaction to the suggestion that the inclusion of religion would preclude those who go about their normal business amusing people from cracking jokes and taking the mickey out of religion. The "Life of Brian", which was used as an analogy at the time, was a good satire on the political left in the 1960s and 1970s and, tragically, on the Spanish civil war to boot. If anyone does not think that to be the case I suggest they take another look at it, and very amusing it was.
	Jokes and amusing behaviour, the criticism of people's religion and the way in which people express their religion will not—this is not our intention—fall foul of the measures.

Brian Sedgemore: The Home Secretary cannot say that.

David Blunkett: I can inform my hon. Friend, who has now entered the Chamber to make my life more miserable, that I am saying that. I am advised by Home Office lawyers that the courts, in their interpretation, will take notice of what has been said, which is why Home Secretaries have to be more careful than sometimes I would wish to be.

Patrick Cormack: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way with his customary courtesy. He must remember that when he made his statement to the House, which was before Rowan Atkinson's letter, some Members, including me, raised legitimate doubts. He must have heard, from all quarters of the Chamber, Members who are serious in intent and genuinely anxious to reach the right solution express their belief that it is a mistake to legislate in this context and at this speed. We are asking him to provide the House with a proper opportunity to consider a draft Bill and to move at a measured pace, so that we can try to put into statute a law that makes sense and is not open to the sort of abuse to which this Bill, enacted in this way, will be.

David Blunkett: I accept that the hon. Gentleman raised those concerns. That was not the point I was making. I was making a point about the general atmosphere surrounding the proposal to insert religion, alongside race, in measures on incitement. The racial aspects of existing laws, including the Race Relations Act 1965, the Public Order Act 1986 and the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, were intended to apply to threatening, abusive or insulting behaviour that is intended to stir up hatred and lead people to take actions against others which, under the Public Order Act, everyone in the Committee would find unacceptable.
	We can therefore assure those from the Evangelical Alliance and small religious denominations such as the Plymouth Brethren, who are present this evening, that their proselytising will not be caught by a clause that inserts religion, alongside race, in measures on incitement. Incitement to what? Not only to hate, but to activities that, as defined by the Public Order Act, threaten others.

Denzil Davies: My right hon. Friend will know that the word "incitement" does not appear in any of the legislation. Does he accept that one problem is that section 18(1) of the Public Order Act has two separate limbs? The first refers to intention, but the second refers merely to likelihood. If my right hon. Friend seeks amelioration, and possibly a compromise, would he consider dropping the second limb, so that a prosecution would have to prove intention, which courts can usually do in criminal cases? It would not then be necessary to refer to the second limb, whose scope is much wider.

David Blunkett: We are, of course, talking about an amendment to part III of the 1986 Act. I understand my right hon. Friend's point. It would be easy to drop the second part, but the difficulty is that in such cases we are not dealing with people of good will. We are dealing with, for instance, the British National party. That takes us back to the point made by the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), who raised serious issues that I intend to try to address. We are trying to deal with those who, understandably from their point of view, would claim that their intention was not to stir up hatred. They would say that they had fallen foul of the law purely by accident, even though their objective, in using certain language in a certain way, was precisely to achieve the goals that we are trying to outlaw this evening.

Alan Simpson: I am sure that the Home Secretary will remember from his years in local government, when he sought to apply race relations legislation to eliminate discrimination and harassment, that real progress was made on legislation that specifically addressed the activities of discrimination, harassment and now aggravated offences. From the legal advice that the Department has given him, I assume he will know that there have been little more than three prosecutions a year on incitement since the 1986 Act was passed. One reason for that is the impossibility of making a sustained case that does not end up discrediting the action itself. Does my right hon. Friend realise that the great strength of what he is doing today is to be found in clause 39, which addresses the gap on aggravated offences? However, he should not extend the nonsense and trap that has caught many of us over the years with clauses 36 to 38.

David Blunkett: I do not honestly believe that many of us have been caught in it. I agree—thank goodness the Committee as a whole appears to agree—that the aggravated offence is correct and should be extended to religion. At least that is progress. I accept that the aggravated offence has been used extensively. Incitement to race hate has not, although eight cases have been agreed by the Attorney-General this year. An important aspect of what we are doing on incitement, not just on race hatred but on religious hatred, was eloquently described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) as discouraging people from certain behaviour. The difficulty with the aggravated offence is that we can punish people more severely for having done something with an aggravated element built into it, but by itself that does not discourage people from behaving in a certain way.
	It is precisely because we wish to change that behaviour, as has been said in our debate, that we are seeking to extend the relevant provisions. Two factors affected my thinking on whether to include religion—I shall deal in a moment with those who advocated that we do so and still do—the first of which was internal reassurance. Since 11 September, people in this country have had a genuine fear, which was articulated earlier this afternoon, that individuals would seek to attack or abuse people, not because of their race but because they are Muslims. Similarly, there is a fear that those who sought to stir up hate against those whom they described as the infidel were equally untouchable under the existing law.
	The second factor was international provision. In the past 11 weeks, considerable attention has been focused on the United Kingdom by other countries, particularly Arab countries. In satellite broadcasts and interviews, it became patently clear that the commitment on religion made on 3 October had a significant impact on people living in and viewing satellite broadcasts in certain countries, including interviewers. They appreciated that that particular change had an impact; they perceived that we were prepared to protect people whom they were told we did not care about and in whom we had no interest because, prima facie, the intention was to damage their religion. Those serious issues deserve serious consideration for the reassurance, resilience and social cohesion of our own community; it is important to be able to contribute to that.
	Both those factors convinced me that it was worth making a simple addition. Future interpretation would not be simple, but it would be open to the Attorney-General to deal with it.
	That is why I am resisting the amendments that would complicate the situation—for example, by using terms such as "supernatural". To amuse myself over a difficult weekend, I thought how ironic it was for the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) to table an amendment dealing with "a supernatural being".

Christopher Chope: When the Home Secretary next comes down to Bournemouth, perhaps he will visit the priory in Christchurch, which is more than 900 years old, and hear about the miracle of the miraculous beam and other great things that went on in Christchurch. He will know that it is a centre of religion.
	One of the concerns expressed to me by my constituents is that if they wish to criticise and, indeed, hate those overseas who are persecuting Christians, they will fall foul of the law in this country. I asked the Home Secretary in a parliamentary question whether the law on religious belief would include protection for Moonies, Muslim fundamentalists and those who believe in the teachings of bin Laden. The right hon. Gentleman refused to give a straight answer to that question. Can he clear that up now?

David Blunkett: Let me clear up a number of things. The allegation was made earlier that somehow the clever lawyers of the Moonies would be able to get the Moonies off charges of taking children away from their families and other such activities. That has nothing to do with the Bill or the clause.

Mark Francois: I thank the Secretary of State for his courtesy in giving way. With great respect, that is not what was said. It was not said that the Moonies would somehow get themselves off; it was suggested that they could use the legislation to blunt criticism of their activities and to silence those who criticised them.

David Blunkett: The Bill does not work that way round. We are dealing with Public Order Acts and incitement to undertake particular actions. The debate is not about prosecuting those who do so, or arguing against or opposing them. There seems to be a considerable misunderstanding about the intention and how the measure will work in practice. Calling the Pope the Anti-Christ does not fall within the definitions that we are discussing.
	We are discussing a particular set of actions intended to evoke a particular reaction which, within the law, would lead others to engage in practices which all of us believe are unacceptable. That is the way round it works. I stress that the debate is about the Public Order Acts, not about religion or what people think or say about particular sects or faiths. That is not at stake this evening. For the benefit of the hon. Member for Christchurch, we believe that the subject of amendment No. 19, which, I think, he tabled, is covered by the existing law. If it is not, I am prepared for the matter to be taken up in the Lords.

David Wilshire: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman the same question as I asked my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin)? If I could demonstrate, as I could, that certain people who are members of the Children of God advocate and take part in sexual activity between themselves—adults—and young children, it is likely that my so doing would cause a breach of the peace because some members of the public could well take the law into their own hands. Why does the Home Secretary seek to protect those people?

David Blunkett: Let us cool it a little. The hon. Gentleman would be suggesting that a group of people were acting not only illegally, but obscenely and unacceptably. By doing so, he would be advocating that the law enforcement agencies start to enforce the law and take action against them. He would provide proof and they would act. If they do not act and he has proof, I invite him to come and see me. I will get our lawyers, the Crown Prosecution Service and the Attorney-General to ensure that we take action. I give the hon. Gentleman that absolute assurance.

George Osborne: The Home Secretary said earlier that one of the Government's intentions was to reassure vulnerable faith groups such as the Muslim community that are currently under-protected by the law. I am sure that he has seen the submission made to the Select Committee on Home Affairs by a number of Muslim organisations, including the Muslim College, the Muslim Council of Britain, the Association of Muslim Schools, the Muslim Parliament and the Union of Muslim Organisations, all of which say:
	"The extension of incitement legislation at this particular time is unlikely to protect Muslims. We have grave reservations about the introduction of legislation at this particular time."
	If the measure is supposed to provide reassurance, it is not working.

David Blunkett: That is very good, except that the groups that the hon. Gentleman quotes had not seen the Bill at that time; they have been debating it since. Today, the Muslim Council of Britain issued a statement saying that it "supports the present proposals"—[Interruption.] Hang on, I have not even finished quoting the statement. The council supports the
	"proposals to extend the incitement to racial hatred in the Public Order Act to religious hatred and to introduce the religiously aggravated offence."
	I very much welcome that statement, which is extremely helpful. I hope that other smaller and less representative groups will also express their support.
	I hope that the Committee will also take notice of the United Nations Human Rights Committee, especially as many hon. Members are, perfectly reasonably, always asking those on the Front Bench to take notice of the United Nations in one form or another. It said:
	"The Committee is concerned by reports that, since recent terrorist attacks, persons have been the subject of attack and harassment on the basis of religious beliefs and that religion has been utilised to incite the commission of criminal acts."
	It went on to express its hope that government—it uses the term "state parties"—will
	"extend its criminal legislation to cover offences motivated by religious hatred."
	So, we are dealing with a little bit of support, as the Home Affairs Committee learned from the Law Commission, the Law Society and Justice.
	If we want to bandy about the names of those who are or are not in favour of the Bill, let us bandy about the website of the British National party, which states:
	"Blunkett's proposed new Heresy Law will . . . 'criminalise' efforts to warn the public about the dire threat posed by Britain's Islam."
	The BNP's website is not, however, anywhere near as bad as the pamphlet that it has been putting through people's doors. In expressing its view of Muslims, it states that
	"they stand for slaughter, arson, looting, rape of women and the establishment of a Muslim dictatorship."
	Those are the sort of views that we are currently having to put up with from organisations such as the BNP. If the Bill would help in any way to ensure that we could take on and defeat such hatred and the sort of disgusting activity that seeks to incite people against each other, I stand guilty of supporting it.
	In the end, Parliament can make up its mind. It can determine whether it feels that adding religion to laws on incitement would make a difference and provide just that little extra element in our armoury, first, to discourage people from taking those steps or inciting that hatred, and secondly, to enable us to do something about it. I put it to the Committee that, although it is open to people to proselytise, put down, debate and criticise other people's faith or religious beliefs, incitement to hatred of any sort is unacceptable. We can see from the amendments tabled by the Liberal Democrats that they, too, hold that view. Taking a small step—something to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton referred—may not satisfy everyone in achieving what they want, but it is a substantial move towards ensuring that we stop the sort of disgusting hatred that exists around us and that was demonstrated by the words that I read out a moment ago.

Gerald Kaufman: My right hon. Friend has made it clear that objections to the legislation are incompatible. On the one hand, they say that it is inoperable, while on the other they say that it is oppressive. Is not it a fact that the race legislation introduced by Labour Governments has now made it impossible for a politician to make the "rivers of blood" speech made by Enoch Powell? Has not legislation on sexual preference introduced by Labour Governments now made it impossible for the sort of homophobic elements that were so prevalent years ago to exist? Apart from practical application, will not the Bill have an important effect in creating a certain climate?

David Blunkett: I agree with my right hon. Friend, who may not know what my hon. Friends on the Front Bench know: the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) has tucked into the Bench in front of him, behind the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), a document whose title is "What Enoch was really saying". It is ironic, therefore, that my right hon. Friend mentioned the "rivers of blood" speech.

Gerald Howarth: I am delighted that Simon Heffer's excellent article in The Spectator has been noted by those on the Government Front Bench. In view of what the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) has suggested, would he have supported action by the Attorney-General against Enoch Powell if he had today made the speech he made on 20 April 1968?

David Blunkett: Even in Committee, I am not in a position to act as a sort of transmission belt between the hon. Gentleman and my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton. One thing is sure: the Attorney- General will take steps only if he believes that it is the public interest to do so—this is the point of the failsafe in the Bill—and that the offences about which people are worried are not covered.

Simon Hughes: The Home Secretary was right to say that one of the things that we must seek to do is reassure our communities. That must be done at home and abroad. Does he accept that, on the basis of what he has heard, those communities would be most reassured by the following: first, an offence that ensures protection in legislation against all sorts of hate crime; and secondly, the guarantee that discrimination against any faith will be outlawed? In the meantime, we have incitement laws that enable prosecution in relation to many of the offences that he and I would want to pursue, and we could quickly introduce legislation on the wider range of matters, to give greater reassurance, if the Government agreed with the Opposition parties that there should be time for that to happen.

David Blunkett: I should like to make three points. First, I agree that we have laws that can be applied in the generality. Secondly, I do not agree that we could act swiftly on the range of measures that the hon. Gentleman enunciates. They would be deeply complicated and difficult to introduce, which is why they cannot be brought before us quickly. Thirdly, I entirely accept his offer, which was also made by the shadow Home Secretary, to co-operate on a much broader swathe of measures in relation to discrimination, which is extremely helpful.

David Winnick: So that history is not rewritten, does my right hon. Friend realise that, to the lasting credit of Quintin Hogg who was shadow Home Secretary in 1968, he criticised Enoch Powell's disgraceful, deplorable, racist speech from the Opposition Front Bench? The then Leader of the Opposition, Edward Heath, sacked Enoch Powell almost immediately. His refusal to tolerate racist, poisonous nonsense did him credit.

David Blunkett: My hon. Friend is right.
	I want to consider new clause 1, which my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) tabled. As usual, he put the case well. Let me make the Government's position clear. There is a good case for revising and, indeed, removing existing blasphemy law. However, the Church of England is worried about the way that would fit in with wider changes. I am sure that the Church of England wants to hold a debate through the Board for Social Responsibility and elsewhere about assisting us to achieve a measure that is less anachronistic and more appropriate to the 21st century.
	I want to make it clear that there is no question of extending the blasphemy law to all other denominations and faiths. We do not want to do that; we want to find an accommodation and a sensitive way forward when few people believe that the current position can continue. However, many people would worry if change were effected hurriedly. As I have already said, I can justify the changes that we are making tonight on the basis of their impact on specific religions, individuals and groups, and wider perceptions inside and outside this country. I cannot justify removing the blasphemy law on that basis.

Frank Dobson: I am pleased that my right hon. Friend has said that there is no question of extending the blasphemy law to cover other Christian denominations or other religions. We want to get rid of it. I am at a loss to understand what other measures the Church of England proposes between abolition of its special protection and its extension to every other religion. The simplest solution is to get rid of it.

David Blunkett: My right hon. Friend has done much work on that, and he knows about the previous working group and the result of the debate in the House of Lords, which took place in, I believe, 1995. We are trying to find consensus and provide reassurance for the Church of England. However, my right hon. Friend has done us a service by putting the subject firmly on the agenda and ensuring that it will not simply go away. I assure him that it will not, although I appreciate that he needs no such assurance because he will ensure that it does not. We will find a way forward with the Church authorities that does not cause the Church too much aggravation.
	I wish to conclude.

Brian Mawhinney: The Home Secretary has reached the hurdle of responding to amendment No. 106 twice in his speech and been distracted. Perhaps he will make an attempt to jump over it before concluding.

David Blunkett: I am grateful for that intervention. If I was trying to deceive the House, I would say that I had been about to deal with the right hon. Gentleman's point. However, that would be untruthful as the matter had simply slipped my mind.
	I went through the amendment earlier today in the Home Office. I am mindful of the issues that the right hon. Gentleman raises. However, we are worried that the amendment would lead people to find ways around his intention, for example by claiming to be religious or by distributing material that purported to be of a religious nature. I am happy to invite my officials to meet him and if we can find a way of expressing what he seeks to achieve, I shall ask Lord Rooker to consider the matter in the House of Lords. The objective is well intentioned and our response is made in the spirit of ensuring that we do not allow loopholes. I am prepared to move forward on that basis.

Brian Mawhinney: I am grateful to the Home Secretary. I tabled the amendment in the spirit in which he replied. I accept the genuineness of his offer, and the opportunity to meet his officials.

David Blunkett: I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's response.

Oliver Letwin: I want to put it on record that, notwithstanding our arguments against the clause, the Home Secretary's offer is welcome.

David Blunkett: I am grateful. The hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) was pleased that my hon. Friends had noticed The Spectator. I noted the generous article about the hon. Member for West Dorset in that magazine, and I thought that it was well deserved. That is my piece of patronage for tonight.
	There are genuine differences about whether we are taking the correct step. I believe that we are, and that the simple inclusion of religion in a measure advocated so many years ago, debated through the years, and agonised over by so many Home Secretaries is a fair and reasonable step. It will discourage those whom we are trying to discourage. It is fair to monitor the provision's operation and to put it on record that the Government are big enough to try to find out whether the clause works. In that spirit, I ask hon. Members to support the inclusion of religion and to ensure that we make the clause work in the best interests of those whom we serve, and that it is not abused by those who always try to undermine the good intentions of legislation. I ask hon. Members to give the clause a fair wind and their vote.

David Wilshire: I agree with the Home Secretary that we need to do all that we can to eliminate hatred—and the sooner, the better. However, I regret that I do not believe that the clause is the right method of achieving that. It will help religious groups which do a great deal of harm rather than protecting those which do not and which therefore need our help.
	When I worked for Members of the European Parliament some 20 years ago, I spent two years researching controversial religious groups. It was challenging and deeply disturbing work. The conclusions that I reached then have not subsequently been undermined. Some are relevant to today's debate.
	First, however hard we try, I feel that we must acknowledge that legislation dealing with personal religious beliefs cannot avoid being an attack on somebody's freedom of thought, belief and expression.
	The second conclusion that I reached all those years ago, which continues to hold true, is that it is impossible to devise a distinction between what some would call a mainstream and acceptable religion and what others would describe as a weird and dangerous cult. It is interesting that the explanatory notes duck the issue by not even attempting a definition.
	Thirdly, most of the public anxiety that we hear about religious groups relates to the impact on others of members acting out their beliefs, rather than of the beliefs themselves. Amendment No. 20, which my hon. Friend the Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) tabled, tries to deal with that matter.
	Fourthly, the only realistic way in which to move forward when dealing with religious issues is to target unacceptable action and ignore religious justifications. That is the exact opposite of the aim of clause 38. It therefore follows that the wrong that the Bill seeks to set right should not be tackled by religious legislation. We should rely on existing legislation, tightened up if necessary, because it provides ample opportunities to act.
	I oppose clause 38 for two reasons. First, as my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) said, it has almost nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill, which is to protect us from terrorism. I accept that the Home Secretary is seeking to address a genuine social problem that needs addressing, but it is a separate issue from terrorism, and we need more than three hours to consider it properly.
	Secondly, the clause plays straight into the hands of the perverted and the downright dangerous who justify their actions as part of their religious belief in and worship of a supreme being. Such people and groups will welcome the protection offered by clause 38. Such antisocial groups crave acceptance and respectability, which clause 38 would give them for their religious beliefs, and protection from scrutiny, exposure and criticism, which the clause would also provide.
	The Bill will be an invitation to every religious group or cult to claim that it is a mainstream religion entitled to the protection of the law. It would be impossible, however hard the Home Secretary tried, to draw a distinction. The Bill will enable such groups to demand the prosecution—the silencing—of people such as me for denouncing them in the way that they so richly deserve. In case hon. Members think that I am exaggerating, I shall give them an example of what I have in mind.
	There is a religious group that calls itself "The Family". It used to call itself "The Children of God". Its origins lie in the American Jesus movement of the 1960s. At the outset, its founder, David Berg, preached a doctrine of rebellion, communal life, rigid discipline and intensive Bible study. So far, probably in most people's book, so good. But, as time went by, Berg developed a doctrine of no action being wrong if done "in the spirit." The result was what I and anyone else who has studied this movement consider to be totally unacceptable sexual, anti-semitic and world revolutionary activity and behaviour. For example, Berg requires his women followers to become prostitutes. Instruction pamphlets that he has written, entitled "God wants me to be a stripper" and "God's whores", make that point, and I have copies, if anyone doubts that they exist. Do we want to protect organisations that produce this sort of material and act out the instructions?
	It gets worse. Berg interpreted the New Testament's
	"I will make you fishers of men"
	as a requirement for women to have sexual intercourse with potential recruits. He called this "flirty fishing", or "FF" for short, and published a range of pamphlets—pamphlets that I have here—explaining exactly what his followers had to do. I shall spare the House the lurid details—[Hon. Members: "Aah!"]. Hon. Members can read them afterwards if they wish, but I warn them that they might be prosecuted for having them in their possession.

Patrick Cormack: What about you, then?

David Wilshire: Well, the Home Secretary asked me whether I would like to bring some of this material in. I have had this collection of material for a number of years, and various police forces have consulted it with a view to using it to take action against members of the organisation. I should be happy to discuss the matter with the Home Secretary.
	Worse even than his encouragement of women members to have sexual intercourse to recruit people, Berg developed dreadful attitudes to children. He encouraged child sex, with experimenting from the age of two or three to full intercourse at the age of 12. He published some quite disgusting pamphlets, such as "My little fish". If any hon. Member is determined enough to see that pamphlet, I can help them out. These pamphlets contain explicit photographs of naked children and naked adults. The Home Secretary will be tempted to say that this has nothing to do with the Bill but, with the greatest respect, it has. I know what the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to achieve, but he will not succeed. He will succeed only in providing protection for people such as members of "The Children of God".
	In my 27 years in politics, I have never before said that I would defy the law, but if the Bill becomes law, I have no intention of ceasing to denounce those who harm others in the name of their god. If a religious group of the sort that I have described—there are others—is denounced by me or others in the way that I have just done, it is hard to see how that would not generate religious hatred against its members and lead some people to take the law into their own hands. Because the justification for those groups' actions is that their religious beliefs require them to behave as they do, they will seek the protection of clause 38 to try to shut me up. As I read it, clause 38 will make me a criminal, but I have to tell the Home Secretary that it will not make me shut up.

Chris Mullin: A number of hon. Members have referred to the report of the Select Committee on Home Affairs. I should make it clear that the Committee did not say that it was against including the clause in the Bill; it said that it was not persuaded. I cannot speak for my colleagues, but, having sat through this debate and listened in particular to the speeches of my right hon. Friends the Members for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) and for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) and my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, I am now persuaded that the clause should remain in the Bill. The fact that we shall rely on the Attorney-General to provide a safeguard is the answer to those who say that the measure will lead to a lot of spurious prosecutions. It is probably also the answer to the problem outlined by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire).
	I do not think that the inclusion of the clause will make an enormous difference. As the Home Secretary said, it is a small step, but it will send a signal that we take seriously the kind of abuses to which some of our constituents are being subjected. Not to include the clause would send a negative signal, and I shall therefore support it.
	On blasphemy, I am afraid that the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St. Pancras seems to have fallen victim to the doctrine of unripe time. Were he to press that amendment to a Division, I would vote for it.

Patrick Cormack: I listened with great interest to the Home Secretary, and I have great admiration for him, but I am afraid that, on this occasion, he is wrong, and I beg him to think again. He said two things in his speech that made me extremely concerned. He said—I paraphrase and I hope that I do not distort too much in the process—that, because of the reaction in Muslim countries to the dreadful events of 11 September, and because of the fear among many Muslims that subsequent actions would be seen as a war against Islam, he was persuaded to introduce measures to our domestic law. I hope that that is not an inaccurate prècis of what the Home Secretary said. I think that he is nodding, and I am glad. I do not believe that that is sufficient reason to rush these measures through the House of Commons.

David Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman was not inaccurate, but that was only a partial explanation.

Patrick Cormack: I do not have a long time to make a speech, but that was one of the reasons that the Home Secretary advanced for introducing the Bill.

David Blunkett: indicated assent

Patrick Cormack: The Home Secretary is assenting to that proposition as I speak. It is a pity that he was persuaded to act so precipitately in an area of great delicacy. Admittedly, he has heard speeches giving him strong support, but he has also heard dissenting speeches by hon. Members in all parts of the House who are united in viewing with total revulsion any incitement to religious or racial hatred. Of course I share entirely the abhorrence of such attitudes, which were graphically described by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman), but the fact that I abhor them as much as he does not mean that I want legislation—in this measure against terrorism of all measures—to be rushed on to the statute book. That in itself would send out rather unfortunate signals.
	The Home Secretary responded generously to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Cambridgeshire (Sir B. Mawhinney), but I ask him to take that a stage further and not insist on these proposals. The Home Secretary should at least give an undertaking not only that he will monitor them but that he may be prepared to withdraw them after listening carefully to powerful speeches made in the other place. The right hon. Gentleman will serve Parliament in so doing.
	The Home Secretary made another remark that does not entirely tie in with his determination to press on. He said that he does not want to hurry the reconsideration of the blasphemy laws. I applaud that, but in that case why hurry the Bill through with such speed? It is not central to his understandable and wholly laudable desire to deal with the terrorism in our midst.
	I am one of those who strongly support the general thrust of the legislation and I am one of those prepared to support internment without trial, because on this occasion the greater good of the greater number transcends that fundamental belief, which I have always held, that it is better for a guilty person to go free than for an innocent one to be punished.
	I do not want a potential terrorist to go free, so I am prepared to give the Home Secretary the benefit of the doubt and support what he says, even though many Members in all parts of the House do not go along with him on that issue. On this provision, however, I beg him to think again. I speak not only as a Member of the House but as the only Member who is an elected member of the General Synod of the Church of England. I know that many, not only in the Church of England but in what are now loosely called the faith communities, share my sense of unease.
	In seven minutes' time, we shall have had three hours of debate on this exceptionally important subject.

Chris Bryant: What message would the Committee send to the Muslim community if it decided, at this particular moment, to keep the blasphemy laws and reject the current measures?

Patrick Cormack: In spite of what the Home Secretary read out from the Muslim Council of Britain, many thoughtful Muslims have said that they have grave misgivings on that score for a number of reasons. One is that they will be brought under a Bill specifically to do with terrorism.
	I return to the point I was making to the Home Secretary, and ask him to reflect for a moment. Three hours' debate in Committee is not enough. Yes, there will be debate in the other place and, yes, the measure may come back to us, but again we shall debate it under a guillotine. I understand the right hon. Gentleman's desire to get the whole measure on to the statute book. I support him in that, in spite of certain misgivings that I hold and which others hold in greater measure, but these measures are not central to the fight against terrorism.
	Why does the Home Secretary not accept that this of all issues lends itself to a draft Bill, which could be considered by a special Committee of the House and, yes, crawled over? I say to the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Bryant) that witnesses could be summoned from the Muslim community as well as from Christian and other faith communities. Let us try to get the Bill right. If we push it through in this form, we shall not do so.
	The Home Secretary should think back to one of his predecessors in that high office of state who, appalled by dreadful incidents of savagery by certain dogs, rushed legislation through the House. That Home Secretary sat on my side of the House, but the Bill was one I could not support. It was not a good measure and it did not produce good law. The danger is that we shall produce bad law if we proceed as the Home Secretary would have us proceed. To produce bad law is far, far worse than leaving the law as it is for the time being.
	I urge the Home Secretary once more to be prepared to be the big man I know he is and say at the very least that he will not only monitor and reflect on but if necessary withdraw these measures. The Bill will be the better for that.

Simon Hughes: I shall conclude in time for the Committee to allow the amendment to be withdrawn and then to vote on the clause, which is clearly the matter over which there is most disagreement.
	We have had a thoughtful debate and the arguments were well put by the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack). I say to the Home Secretary that there is no acrimony between him and the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) and me, but there is an honest disagreement over our respective proposals. To turn round a phrase that was used earlier, we are discussing not the doctrine of the unripe time, but the doctrine of the inappropriate place. We say that this is not the place to legislate on matters that we cannot deal with properly today.
	There is nothing between us in wanting to deal with hostility towards faith communities; there is nothing between us in wanting to end discrimination; and there is nothing between us in wanting to deal with revulsion and hate crimes in our communities.

Edward Garnier: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Simon Hughes: I am afraid that I do not have time.
	There are other ways to proceed, however, and those would allow hate crimes generally to be dealt with. Parliament could take time to get the legislation right and Members, if we are to deal with religious matters, could deal with them all together.
	The hon. Member for West Dorset is right: there is a huge difference between definition by race, which is unalterable, and arguments about faith, which can be adopted and which is entirely alterable. I hope that the Committee agrees with Members on the Opposition and Labour Benches who believe that we are not ready to legislate. I also hope that the Committee—if not today, then soon—will see the clause removed from the Bill. Then we can all discuss a reasonable compromise between the positions, which is what the Home Secretary wants.
	There is a dialogue to be had. We have listened to the Home Secretary's arguments; I hope he listens to ours. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Motion made, and Question put, That the clause stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 328, Noes 209.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clause 38 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	It being after half-past Six o'clock The Chairman, pursuant to Order [19 and 21 November] put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Clauses 39 to 42 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 43 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 44
	 — 
	Extraterritorial application of biological weapons offences

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I have a couple of questions for the Minister, but I shall be entirely content if he is good enough to give me answers in writing over the next few days. [Interruption.]

Alan Haselhurst: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I must ask Members who do not wish to stay for this debate not to engage in conversations, but to leave quickly and quietly.

Humfrey Malins: Thank you, Sir Alan.
	I have noted the effects of clauses 43 and 44—particularly those of clause 44, which extends United Kingdom jurisdiction over certain offences to acts committed overseas by a UK person. Opposition Members understand the need for the clauses, but we have a brief query.
	We note the extent to which clauses 43 and 44 cover activities of any person within the UK, and of UK persons outside the UK. Can the Minister confirm that clause 44 covers either or both of the following persons? The first is a UK-based foreign national—possibly an EU citizen—with rights to work and live here who, while abroad, commits an act that, if committed by a UK person, would be an offence. The second is someone who, although not a British subject, has exceptional leave to remain in this country, and who commits such an act while on a foreign trip.
	We know the position of a UK person outside the UK, and his or her liability. Other people, however, could have rights of abode of one kind or another in this country, and might while abroad commit an offence and then seek to return here. I merely seek clarification of whether such persons will be covered. I shall be grateful if the Minister can clarify that now, but I shall entirely understand if he cannot.

Elfyn Llwyd: I want to speak to amendments Nos. 51 and 52 later. They have not been called yet.

The Chairman: Order. We are currently discussing whether clause 44 should stand part of the Bill. What the hon. Gentleman says is interesting, but not strictly relevant.

Ben Bradshaw: I assure the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) that he will not have to wait for answers. My officials have been very quick off the mark, and have assured me that the answer to both his questions is no.

Humfrey Malins: I understand the Minister to have said that the clause would not apply to the people whom I cited. Given that its purpose is to cover a UK person based in the UK but committing an offence abroad, would it not be wise to consider, at some stage between now and when the Bill goes to another place, whether the Government have covered every person whom they feel should be covered? I leave that message with the Minister.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 44 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 45
	 — 
	Customs and Excise prosecutions for biological weapons offences

Ben Bradshaw: I beg to move amendment No. 23, in page 22, line 14, leave out from "involved" to end of line 18 and insert "—
	(a) the development or production outside the United Kingdom of any thing mentioned in section 1(1)(a) or (b) above;
	(b) the movement of any such thing into or out of any country or territory;
	(c) any proposal or attempt to do anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b) above'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 24 to 29.

Ben Bradshaw: The amendments fall into three groups. Amendments Nos. 23, 25 and 28 are required to enable Customs and Excise officers to investigate and, where appropriate, prosecute offences concerning the development or production of the relevant weapon overseas. Such offences are likely to involve the transfer into or out of a country of technology relating to the development of biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, or the provision of services overseas. These technical amendments will allow customs officers to investigate all relevant offences, and will bring provisions in the Bill more into line with those in the Export Control Bill, which is being considered in the other place.
	While cases in Scotland are prosecuted by the relevant procurator fiscal, Customs and Excise officers are responsible for investigation of customs matters throughout the United Kingdom. Amendments Nos. 24, 26 and 29 will make it clear that customs' investigation role in respect of such cases will apply in Scotland, as it does in England and Wales and Northern Ireland.
	Amendment No. 27 makes it clear that application of clause 47 is not restricted to acts done outside the United Kingdom. The amendment brings the structure of the clause into line with similar clauses elsewhere.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 24, in page 22, line 38, after "to", insert "the institution of".—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Clause 45, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 46
	 — 
	Customs and Excise prosecutions for chemical weapons offences

Amendments made: No. 25, in page 23, line 4, leave out from "involved" to end of line 8 and insert "—
	(a) the development or production outside the United Kingdom of a chemical weapon;
	(b) the movement of a chemical weapon into or out of any country or territory;
	(c) any proposal or attempt to do anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b).'
	No. 26, in page 23, line 28, after "to", insert "the institution of".—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Clause 46, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 47
	 — 
	Use etc. of nuclear weapons

Amendment made: No. 27, in page 24, line 16, at end insert—
	'( ) Nothing in subsection (7) affects any criminal liability arising otherwise than under that subsection.'—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: The Minister will note that clause 47(7) states:
	"This section applies to acts done outside the United Kingdom, but only if they are done by a United Kingdom person."
	Although I have the same question on this provision as I had on previous ones, I understand that the same answer will apply. I shall therefore not prolong matters. However, when the Minister is considering why the persons to whom I have referred are not covered by an earlier clause and whether they should be so covered, will he ask himself the same questions in relation to clause 47(7)?

Denzil Davies: As I was a shadow defence spokesman many years ago, I sit up when I see the words "use of nuclear weapons". Clause 47 seems to make it a prima facie offence—a term that I use advisedly, as there are later exceptions—to have nuclear weapons in one's possession. If there were no exceptions, presumably even a Government who have nuclear weapons in their possession would be guilty of an offence. However, as the draftsmen and the Home Office are clearly not that stupid, they have made exceptions.
	Clause 48(1) notes:
	"Nothing in section 47 applies—
	(a) to an act which is authorised under subsection (2)".
	I take it that that provision will permit "The Secretary of State"—which I take to mean any Secretary of State; I do not know whether the decision would fall to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—to authorise the use of the nuclear deterrent. It is a curious and bizarre provision. It must also be the first time that we have made such provision in legislation. I also note that use is permitted in armed conflict without a certificate, and that the Secretary of State can decide what an armed conflict is.
	There must be some type of authorisation for the development, possession and participation in the transfer of nuclear weapons. If there were not, the Government presumably would have to prosecute themselves. Perhaps the Attorney-General will be wheeled in for that purpose—he seems to be wheeled in for the purposes of most other parts of the legislation—and will exercise his discretion. I note the matter simply because I find it bizarre.

Llew Smith: I have a question on tactics and the definition of nuclear weapons used in clauses 47 to 49. Do the Government intend that the Bill should include as nuclear weapons radiological weapons that are made from nuclear waste, spent nuclear fuel or other radioactive-source contaminants that are detonated with conventional explosives?

Ben Bradshaw: The answer to the last question is no.
	The exceptions in clause 48 to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Denzil Davies) referred are required, as he suggested, to prevent essential operational and maintenance activities of authorised persons connected to the UK's independent nuclear deterrent from being an offence. In the course of an armed conflict, it may not be practical for the Secretary of State to issue all the authorisations required to operate the deterrent without imposing unacceptable delay. For that reason, it is necessary to have a more general exception.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 47, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 48 to 52 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 53
	 — 
	Customs and Excise prosecutions

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 27, line 6, leave out from "involved" to end of line 10 and insert "—
	(a) the development or production outside the United Kingdom of a nuclear weapon;
	(b) the movement of a nuclear weapon into or out of any country or territory;
	(c) any proposal or attempt to do anything falling within paragraph (a) or (b).'
	No. 29, in page 27, line 28, after "to", insert "the institution of".—[Mr. Bradshaw.]
	Clause 53, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 54 to 57 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 58
	 — 
	Pathogens and toxins in relation to which requirements under Part 7 apply

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 28, line 35, leave out—
	'is capable of endangering life or causing'
	and insert—
	'could be used in an act of terrorism to endanger life or cause'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 35 to 37.

Beverley Hughes: Clauses 58 to 75 and schedules 5 and 6 introduce a regime to improve security in laboratories and other places where dangerous substances that could be used as a weapon by terrorists are being held.
	Clause 58 identifies the dangerous pathogens and toxins—which are listed in schedule 5—that will be brought within the controls set out in this part of the Bill immediately upon Royal Assent. The amendments limit the exercise of those powers to cases in which the chemicals or substances concerned may be used in acts of terrorism. A definition is added to provide that terrorism has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000.

Tam Dalyell: I should like to ask my hon. Friend a question that applies to the whole of part 7. What estimate has been made of the extra costs of undertaking those types of security arrangement—which I do not doubt may well be necessary? Clause 59, for example, places a duty on the occupiers of premises to notify the Secretary of State before keeping or using any dangerous substance there. Occupiers of premises holding those substances when the Bill is enacted must notify the Secretary of State within one month. Similarly, occupiers of premises holding substances that are subsequently added to the schedule will have one month in which to notify the Secretary of State of their holdings once any such modification comes into effect.
	I should have thought that that will involve a good deal of work for people. I am not saying that the work is unnecessary, but what estimate has been made of the extra cost of all that notification for those who run laboratories? Many of them are at their wits' end in trying to cope with their current financial situation.

John Gummer: Can the Minister say who will check that what is being done is being done properly? Will she consider that those who at the moment are looking at safety in terms of pathogens getting out into the atmosphere might also investigate this matter? There is a possibility of enormously increased expense for owners of laboratories, as well as for the Government and officials. I hope that this has been thought through carefully.

Beverley Hughes: Members may have seen the regulatory impact assessment. I cannot remember the detail in relation to the cost of this part of the Bill, but an estimate has been made, as has been done rigorously for all parts of the Bill. In preparing the Bill, the levels of security at many laboratories were investigated thoroughly by the Home Office and the police. The overall benefit in increased security very much outweighs the cost.
	As a result of our inquiries at laboratories, we are convinced—as are many laboratory owners, knowing what has happened in the United States and what could happen elsewhere—that these measures are very much needed. We have the co-operation of laboratory owners and managers and we expect the costs to be limited and reasonable. I said that our survey suggested that security at some laboratories was seriously lacking. About half those that we have seen so far require security measures to be improved. The measure will not affect every single laboratory.
	If hon. Members would like me to write to them to give further details, I shall do so. However, I hope that they accept my assurance, on the basis of the work that we have done, that the measures are needed. We want to put in place a manageable, workable regime that will greatly improve the security of dangerous substances in laboratories.

Tam Dalyell: I am not in any way trying to catch out the Minister, but some of us would like to be written to about this matter. Which laboratories have been talked to? Clause 61 would allow the police to request information about persons who have access to dangerous substances or to the premises in which they are kept or used. It would also place a duty on occupiers to ensure that other persons do not have access to the premises or substances. That is an onerous requirement in practice.
	Perhaps the best thing would be for my hon. Friend the Minister to write a letter, or use the facilities of the other place, to explain to whom the Government have talked and whether those to whom they have talked are satisfied.

John Gummer: I want to emphasise that many of these matters are technical. The phrase used is that a constable will ask for the information concerned. Obviously, that is not what will really happen, but I would like to know whether the technical people who already visit such establishments for safety reasons could be used successfully to avoid the extra weight of more visits when visits could be combined. They are the right people for the job, not constables.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for raising that valid point. I will write to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) in as much detail as I can about how the provision will work.
	Amendment agreed to.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 29, line 2, at end add—
	'(5) But something otherwise falling within subsection (4) is not to be regarded as a dangerous substance if—
	(a) it satisfies prescribed conditions; or
	(b) it is kept or used in prescribed circumstances.'

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 43 to 45 and 34.

Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 31 will allow the list of dangerous substances in schedule 5 to be modified by secondary legislation, so that any example of a given substance would not be controlled if it met prescribed conditions. By that, I mean, first, that there are some substances which, of themselves, would be dangerous, but in certain places—pharmacies, for instance—would be in such tiny amounts that they could not be used by terrorists, and secondly, circumstances where the actual substance or toxin was part of another product from which it could not be extracted. Clearly, in those circumstances, we would not want to apply the measures to laboratories or pharmacies, so substances in the prescribed conditions can be excluded by order.
	Amendment No. 34 is consequential upon amendment No. 31, and ensures that regulations made under the new power are subject to negative resolution procedure. Amendments Nos. 43 to 45 are technical and concern the list of dangerous substances in schedule 5.

David Heath: With regard to amendment No. 43, I presume that there has been a change of taxonomy about which people are unaware in terms of parrot fever, which always has been chlamydia psittaci. Every single microbiologist to whom I have spoken over the last few weeks has always referred to it as that and intends to continue to refer to it as a chlamydia species. Presumably its name has changed.

Beverley Hughes: indicated assent

David Heath: The Minister agrees. Is it therefore sensible to have these organisms, pathogens and toxins described in such specific terms in schedule 5, given that they will then have to be amended by order whenever there is either a change of taxonomy or, more likely—this is a real problem with having a prescriptive list of this kind—when there are pathogens that are not within the list but which represent precisely the same dangers? Does the Minister believe that the definition of "pathogen" or "toxin" under clause 58—one that is
	"capable of endangering life or causing serious harm to human health"—
	is not a sufficiency unto itself?
	If there were to be a subsequent schedule to describe those viruses and bacteria that are contained, could those be described more properly in class terms, rather than as specific organisms? For instance, a number of viruses described in the list are associated with various haemorrhagic diseases. However, new haemorrhagic diseases are being identified all the time, especially in Africa. It would be folly to have one organism specifically listed in the schedule, while another that is not listed could not be added to the list without the bothersome bureaucracy of an Order in Council and secondary legislation. Is it possible to construct a schedule in more general terms, which nevertheless covers the pathogens and toxins that the Minister wishes to identify within the Bill?

Tam Dalyell: Everything depends on the good sense of those who make the decisions. What is the situation with the establishment of the pathogens access appeals commission? Is it being set up or has it been set up, and what is the likely composition? I am not asking the Minister to give me names off the top of her head, but it is an important matter. How big a body will it be, as it could be a significant operation?

John Gummer: As a non-lawyer, I have a concern about what happens if material not listed here is found in the hands of a terrorist or a putative terrorist. Could he claim that because it was not listed in the schedule, it was therefore less objectionable? Would he be in a better position because of the detailed listing? I am sure that that has been considered, and I would like to know what the position is.

Beverley Hughes: As several right hon. and hon. Members in the Chamber have considerable expertise in this area, I shall have to be careful on the scientific aspects. In response to the questions of the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), we have been informed that the name of the substance to which he referred has been accepted as being changed. The amendment simply puts in the schedule what the scientific community regards as the correct nomenclature.
	The hon. Gentleman also mentioned specificity. We took the view that because there is a duty in the provisions to report substances—indeed, it is an offence not to do so within a certain time scale—it was right to be clear and specific in those circumstances. We believe that as there is also the power to amend the schedule, being specific is the right course of action and only fair to the laboratories, given the duties that we are placing on them and the fact that people can be in breach of the law by not reporting specific substances.
	In response to my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), the appeals commission has not yet been established. We have not yet made decisions on some of the questions that he has raised, such as the size of membership. We think that it should be small, and members will need to be vetted. We are in the process of deciding on those details.
	On the point raised by the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), the schedule applies only for the purposes of duties in part 7 and will not be prejudicial to other legislation. I am not sure whether that fully answers the right hon. Gentleman's point, but it is as far as I can go this evening.

Tam Dalyell: My hon. Friends may remember the attack by the Americans on the El Shifa factory outside Khartoum. I do not want to go into details, but it was all based on false premises. The substance—o ethyl methyl phosphonoic acid—was not being made at the factory at all. In this field, all sorts of false information, taken out of context, can easily lead to actions that tend to be unjustified. I am not saying that the commission will make mistakes—its members may be very wise and distinguished—but this is a difficult area. It might be a good idea to put a copy of a letter in the Library, explaining the background, because these are important issues.
	Amendment agreed to
	Clause 58, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 5
	 — 
	Pathogens and Toxins

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 105, line 29, leave out "Chlamydia" and insert "Chlamydophila".
	No. 44, in page 106, line 11, at end insert—
	'1A Any reference in this Schedule to a toxin includes—
	(a) any genetic material containing any nucleic acid sequence for the coding of the toxin; and
	(b) any genetically modified organism containing any such sequence.'
	No. 45, in page 106, line 12, leave out paragraph 2 and insert—
	'2 Any reference in this Schedule to a toxin includes subunits of the toxin.'—[Mrs. McGuire.]
	Question proposed, That this schedule, as amended, be the Fifth schedule to the Bill.

Tam Dalyell: I wish to press my hon. Friend gently about whether background information will be put in the Library on this issue, either by the Home Office or the Ministry of Defence. My hon. Friend the Under–Secretary of State for Defence has been very good in the past about giving such details, which the scientific community has certainly appreciated. I think that the same should be done here.

Beverley Hughes: Will my hon. Friend say specifically what information on schedule 5 he would like put in the Library?

Tam Dalyell: An explanation of the mechanism of how these decisions are made and who is making them.

Beverley Hughes: If my hon. Friend means by that the decisions on what is classed as a dangerous substance, the composition of schedule 5 and the way in which any additions to it might be made, I can give him that assurance.

Tam Dalyell: Good. I thank my hon. Friend.
	Question put and agreed to
	Schedule 5, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 59
	 — 
	Duty to notify Secretary of State before keeping or using any dangerous substance

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 29, line 17, leave out "one month" and insert "fourteen days".
	I shall be extremely brief. Throughout the Bill, the Government seek to tighten controls on dangerous materials, and who could argue with that as an objective? Therefore, it struck us as a little surprising that the compliance period was a month when a shorter time scale should be achievable. That is the reason for the amendment, and I would be grateful for the Minister's comments.

Beverley Hughes: I have sympathy with the objectives of Liberal Democrat Members. The amendment would reduce from one month to 14 days the period in which occupiers of premises must notify the Secretary of State that they hold or use dangerous substances. I understand and relate to the hon. Gentleman's desire that such information should be made available to the authorities at the earliest opportunity. I remind him of the earlier comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) about what that requirement will mean for occupiers of laboratories. Furthermore, if the Bill receives Royal Assent, we will be making it an offence for the occupier to fail to provide the required notification within the specified period.
	For both those reasons, it seemed that the time scale should be feasible. It should not be so short that an occupier who was willing to comply with the requirement was in danger of committing an offence simply because there was not enough time in which to do so. That is why we have taken the view that one month is a more reasonable time scale for that purpose.
	I ask the hon. Gentleman not to press his amendment. We agree with its spirit but believe that one month is a better time scale in the circumstances.

John Gummer: Will the Minister return to the problem that I raised before in a slightly different context? In most cases, as I understand it, the proprietors or managers of such establishments have to make returns of various kinds if they have such material in their possession. That is not to protect the nation against terrorists—as is now the case—but to ensure that these often extremely dangerous pathogens will not escape into the outside atmosphere or beyond the confines of the laboratory.
	I am concerned that there should not be yet another, separate burden, and that the provisions should be integrated into the system that is already used to regulate those matters. If we could put that right, we should get closer to dealing with the concerns raised by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). This part of the Bill worries me. I realise that there is a question of time and I am not suggesting that everything can be covered in this way, but if we are talking about joined-up government we should acknowledge that one of the things that makes life extremely difficult for people is having to report the same thing to different people at different times and within different time scales.
	I hope that the Minister will assure the Committee that she will look into practical ways in which the process can be made easier. That is not because I have a particular interest either in supporting or agreeing with the laboratories, but to point out that if things are easy to do, they are more likely to be done on time and properly. If the process is complex, complicated and if there are overlaps, we shall have problems. I hope that the Departments involved will consider whether a more integrated system can be evolved.

Beverley Hughes: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. Clearly, the occupiers will have to know about their own substances—they will have to collect and record that information. I am certainly happy to assure him that, in considering the detail of the operation of the scheme under these provisions, we shall—as far as we can—enable proprietors, as the right hon. Gentleman says, to join up the systems. If we can achieve some economies of scale as regards their efforts, we shall try to do so.

Tam Dalyell: There is the problem of the availability of people who are competent to deal with many of these complex matters. For example, if we consider the list of substances in the schedule, how many people are there who could make a judgment about Marburg virus or Variola virus and other complicated matters? Such people are few and far between. I have a terrible suspicion that it is one of those things that is easier said than done.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Minister for her explanation, and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 59 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 60
	 — 
	Power to require information about security of dangerous substances

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 138, in page 29, line 30, leave out from "to" to end of line 32 and insert "—
	(a) any dangerous substance kept or used in the premises; or
	(b) the measures taken (whether by the occupier or any other person) to ensure the security of any such substance.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendment No. 32.

Beverley Hughes: Amendment No. 138 makes it explicit that, in their inquiries, the police will be able to require information relating to the substances themselves, not merely relating to the security measures taken with regard to those substances. That clarification is necessary because, although the police would not require a detailed knowledge of toxicology to carry out their duties, there might be circumstances in which different measures would be appropriate, so the police would need information about the actual substances.
	In relation to amendment No. 32, the reference in clause 60 to "relevant premises" means places where dangerous substances are stored. However, to make the controls watertight, the provisions need to cover places where occupiers have notified their intention of keeping dangerous substances, or where they might keep such substances from time to time. The amendment gives clarification in that respect.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 32, in page 29, line 41, at end add
	'or in respect of which a notice under section 59 is in force'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 60, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 61 to 63 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 64
	 — 
	Denial of access to dangerous substances

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I have a brief question for the Minister and a suggestion. Clause 64 gives the Secretary of State power to require that a specified person be denied access to dangerous substances or to the premises in which they are held, but the Secretary of State will be able to do so only where that is necessary in the interests of national security or public safety.
	We think that there is a good argument for the Secretary of State to have power to forbid access to dangerous substances if they are likely to be used overseas—for example, in the United States—as well as in the UK. May I direct the Minister's attention to subsection 64(3) which states:
	"The Secretary of State may not give the directions unless he believes that they are necessary in the interests of national security"?
	I suggest that the Minister's officials may like to consider with her whether it would be appropriate to broaden the provision slightly, perhaps by adding
	"or the security of any country or territory outside the UK".
	I can see no practical harm in slightly widening the clause, with which we are otherwise in agreement.

Beverley Hughes: I need to take advice before I can give the hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. I suspect—although I cannot be held to this—that the point may be covered by the definition of terrorism referred to earlier in that part of the Bill. If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make some inquiries, I shall write to him and clarify the position.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 64 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 65
	 — 
	Powers of entry

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: We recognise that this series of provisions is extremely important. As the Minister knows, they form a sort of package of new regulations that will require enforcement and attention. The various specialist organisations that deal with those substances should be made aware of the new requirements.
	I have some questions about policing requirements as, in practice, they could prove difficult. Before I ask them, I draw the Committee's attention to the provisions on periods of notice in subsection (2). We are not clear whether in an emergency a period of notice of two days before the proposed entry would be satisfactory. Will the Minister comment on whether she could envisage circumstances in which there would be a need for much more rapid action?
	In relation to powers of entry, a constable has to give notice under the provisions in the clause and can then enter "any relevant premises", so that clearly refers to the police.
	It is true that under clause 65(5) the constable can
	"take with him such other persons as appear to him to be necessary."
	However, I wonder whether I can press the Minister a little further on this issue. We are dealing with some possibly very dangerous and specialised substances. Is not it the case that, as often as not, the military will accompany the constable? If so, are those in the military aware of that, and can the Minister confirm that they have sufficient specialised operatives to cover the matter?
	To return to the police themselves, under clause 65, on the powers of entry, and under other clauses a policeman's knowledge will have to be very specialised indeed. On entering a premises, he or she will have to react quickly in a specialised and very knowledgeable way, much more so than in the normal course of events when the police investigate crimes. First, can the Minister confirm, therefore, whether the police force has specialised groups equipped and trained to deal with such events? Secondly, if that is not the case, can she confirm whether, given the sensitive and important nature of such matters, the police will receive specialised training from now on?
	I want to draw to the Minister's attention another point, which relates to the accompanying of the police by civilians. It is obviously important that clause 65(5) will allow the constable
	"to take with him such other persons as appear to him to be necessary."
	However, I can envisage—can the Minister?—circumstances in which such a person will be drawn not from the military or the police but from the civilian world: he or she might be an expert chemist, or someone of that sort. This very important point relates to insurance. I do not want to stray from the subject, but I have come across circumstances in which a civilian, who was seconded by the military and was, to all intents and purposes, in the military domain, returned from the Gulf war with some very bad symptoms not covered under the usual military insurance umbrella.
	I pause just to say that, in relation to clause 65, I envisage the possibility of the police having with them civilian experts whom they might call in to help to enter a premises and a diagnosis once on the premises. Can the Minister confirm—if not now, as soon as possible—whether the fullest insurance cover will exist in every case in relation to that civilian who accompanies the policeman as though that civilian were part of the police force? Those are my queries in relation to clause 65, which, as I say, is important. One or two of the matters that I raise with the Minister need a little more thought.

John Gummer: I should like to turn to the two working days' notice and the interrelation between clause 65 and the legislation that governs the keeping of such materials. If in the normal course of events and irrespective of the Bill it came to the authorities' notice that there was a danger that such materials might be leaking into the atmosphere, no one would give notice of any sort. The authorities would intervene as quickly as possible to discover whether what appeared to be happening was happening and, if it were, to stop it. The suggestion that two days' notice should be given worries me significantly, not only because terrorism may be involved but because of the interrelation between the Bill and the legislation that covers such things in any other event.
	If ever there were a situation in which the powers of entry ought to be stronger rather than weaker, this is it. As one who has criticised the Bill because it includes a series of provisions and powers that ought not to be included, it seems only right for me to tell the Minister that I hope clause 65(2) is contradicted elsewhere in the Bill, so that we do not get into that mess. If clause 65(2) is contradicted, perhaps it should include the phrase "two working days in normal circumstances". If such a contradiction exists, the provision should be changed so that it is not quite so obvious as it appears.

Tam Dalyell: Subsection (5) states:
	"The powers of a constable under this section include power to take with him such other persons as appear to him to be necessary."
	I suspect that I ask a rather obvious question to which there is an obvious answer, but exactly to whom does the phrase "other persons" refer? Do the Government think that it includes people from a local university or people from industry? Whom do they envisage accompanying the constable in those very complex matters?

Beverley Hughes: Clause 65 relates to the kind of routine checks that constables can make in accordance with part 7. In those circumstances, on a periodic basis, two days' notice would be given. Of course, if rapid action were needed for whatever reason, it would be possible to get a warrant from a justice of the peace. Clause 66, on search warrants and powers of entry in an emergency, would determine the ability of the police to act very quickly if they had reason to believe that security arrangements were failing. So the issues raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell) and the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) are covered.
	Hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow, have asked about the person who will accompany the constable. We envisage that, in practice, constables will probably need to be accompanied by a scientist working in the field, rather than by the military. Hon. Members who obviously have great knowledge of such issues will know that there are several establishments that can provide people with the right expertise and experience to accompany constables in that way.
	The hon. Member for Woking also asked about insurance. I will investigate that further, but as I have just said, we envisage that the people who accompany constables would already work in the field. However, I will certainly check whether those who are contracted to undertake such inspections with constables are covered by the insurance at their own place of work.
	The right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) raised several issues. There is a possible link to the point that, I think, he was making about escaping pathogens, but these provisions relate to the security of premises, so the matters he raises are not squarely relevant to the provisions under consideration at the moment. I hope that I have assisted hon. Members and that they will accept those reassurances.

John Gummer: I thank the Minister, but she has misunderstood my point. Although it is perfectly true that the provisions in the Bill are for one purpose and that other legislation is for another purpose, when the two purposes come together the same people and the same information will be involved. The provisions in this clause should not be a more onerous or less effective burden on those who have to carry them out.
	The Minister said—I am sure that she meant it—that the powers of entry under this clause relate to routine checks. However, clause 66 contains a series of conditions and none of them specifically covers what would happen if an emergency arose and no notice could be given. Clause 66 gives a number of reasons why notice cannot be given, but the list is not exhaustive. It would be more helpful if it were made clear that clause 65 relates to normal activities and that in abnormal circumstances two days' notice would not be required. I hope that the Minister will consider that point, because she will see that clause 66 does not cover all the possible circumstances.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 65 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 66 to 70 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 6 agreed to.

Clause 71
	 — 
	Other appeals

Amendment made: No. 33, in page 34, line 42, leave out subsection (5) and insert—
	'(5) Subsections (1) to (3) apply to Scotland with the substitution for references to the magistrates' court of references to the sheriff.
	(5A) The appeal to the sheriff is by way of summary application.
	(5B) A further appeal shall lie—
	(a) to the sheriff principal from the decision of the sheriff; and
	(b) with the leave of the sheriff principal, to the Court of Session from the decision of the sheriff principal.'—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Question proposed, That the clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill.

Humfrey Malins: I shall be brief, because I know that time is against us.
	I am a little concerned about the length of time for appeals. Appeals made under this clause will take place under the directions in clauses 62 and 63. Some of those directions could be very serious and might need to be acted upon very quickly. It baffles me why an appeal to a magistrates court can be delayed for as long as 28 days after the directions are given and then appeal can be made to the Crown court. With my judicial hat on, I am aware that a clever defendant can get his first appeal adjourned and—to cut a long story short—by going to the Crown court, can ensure that it is as long as four months before an appeal is concluded. Is that satisfactory?

Beverley Hughes: The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I agree to look at the matter to see whether we need to strengthen the provision. If we give notices in such circumstances, we want them to be acted on.
	Clause 71, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 72 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 73
	 — 
	Orders and regulations

Amendment made: No. 34, in page 35, line 15, leave out—
	'59 or 61 or Schedule 5'
	and insert "58, 59 or 61".—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 73, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 74
	 — 
	Interpretation

Amendment made: No. 35, in page 35, line 19, at end insert—
	'"act of terrorism" has the same meaning as in the Terrorism Act 2000 (c.11);'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 74, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 75
	 — 
	Power to extend Part 7 to animal or plant pathogens, pests or toxic chemicals

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 36, line 7, leave out—
	'is capable of endangering life or causing'
	and insert—
	'could be used in an act of terrorism to endanger life or cause'.
	No. 37, in page 36, line 11, after "used", insert—
	'in an act of terrorism'.—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 75, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 76
	 — 
	Atomic Energy Authority special constables

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tam Dalyell: The clause deals with Atomic Energy Authority special constables, and subsection (1) extends the places within which the Atomic Energy Authority constabulary has powers of constables to include any licensed nuclear sites—and not just those of the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority, British Nuclear Fuels and Urenco Ltd.
	I wish to say a word about Urenco to my hon. Friends on the Front Bench. In the early 1980s, I tabled oral and written questions to the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, about the activities of a young research student, as he was then, at the university of Brussels. He had gone to Almelo Urenco in Holland and pinched—I think "pinched" is the right word—not only important physics formulas but lists of where the parts and equipment for making nuclear devices could be obtained. The research student's name was Abdul Qadeer Khan and he was the "father" of the Pakistan bomb. To be fair to Margaret Thatcher, she took the issue extremely seriously and I went to see her. One can check that by examining the history of the 1980s.
	The fact is that crimes relating to nuclear devices and the problems with which the clause deals are likely to be perpetrated by extremely skilled and often trusted people. Surely if we are to take the matter seriously, we should examine carefully the CVs of all who now work in nuclear installations. That is a tall order, but if security is to be maintained, there must be far more detailed examinations particularly of students from abroad. That is why I raise the question of Abdul Qadeer Khan and what happened previously
	I do not know whether I am going over the top, but is my hon. Friend the Minister concerned to ensure that extremely expert people have their credentials examined far more seriously than ever before?

Brian Wilson: I assure my hon. Friend that all aspects of security at nuclear installations are closely examined. He would not expect me to comment further but, on his wider point about Urenco, it is policed by the UKAEA constabulary and the enhanced powers of the constabulary will apply to such installations. Other than to note his comments, I cannot go beyond that tonight.

Tam Dalyell: I have a very straight question. Is more being done than was being done before 11 September?

Brian Wilson: The fact that we are introducing the Bill suggests that more is being done than before 11 September. I hope that my hon. Friend is satisfied with the extension of the constabulary's powers. On his point about checking the CVs of applicants to work in nuclear power stations, I have no reason to believe that the process has hitherto been deficient. I am therefore reluctant to enter into a cosy consensus with him on that point. However, I can positively say without prejudice that future practice will no doubt be enhanced by the Bill and that CVs will be extremely closely monitored.

Tam Dalyell: So that the issue is considered in the light of day, may I ask for a letter of reflection to be placed in the Library? It is a very serious subject.

Brian Wilson: I would never refuse my hon. Friend a letter of reflection.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 76 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 77
	 — 
	Regulation of security of civil nuclear industry

Elfyn Llwyd: I beg to move amendment No. 51, in page 38, line 41, after "commission", insert—
	'the Scottish Executive and National Assembly for Wales'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 52, in page 39, line 14, at end add—
	'In respect of the regulations, the Secretary of State shall be required to make regular reports to Parliament on the security of the civil nuclear industry, on each occasion as regulations are made, and on a cycle of no more than six months since the last regulations have been made.'.

Elfyn Llwyd: I am still champing at the bit. I had a go earlier just to put my marker down.
	The wording of the amendments is self-evident. They would place on the Government a duty to consult the Scottish Executive, Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales. In respect of the regulations, the Secretary of State would be required to make regular reports to Parliament on the security of the civil nuclear industry. The Minister might say that because the report is so sensitive it will go to the Intelligence and Security Committee, but it is only right that scrutiny should be applied to this important aspect of the Bill, especially when we take into account the attitude of the Government of the Republic of Ireland towards Sellafield.
	Those who know more about this subject than I do estimate that even with the 5 km no-fly zone it would take about 14 seconds for a rogue aircraft to hit Sellafield where there are pools of nuclear waste. The ultimate dirty bomb could be created on site. It has also been estimated that that would create a fallout about 10 times the size of that of the Chernobyl incident. I have to declare an interest: there is one decommissioned nuclear power station in my constituency within 15 miles of where I live. By coincidence, my constituency still suffers from the fallout of Chernobyl, so naturally I am greatly concerned about this problem. There is also an extant nuclear power station on Anglesey.
	The problem is that there is insufficient discussion or supervision of what is proposed. I know that the Minister will say that he cannot specify what is being done, and I pray to God that something is being done post-11 Sept. I have heard the hon. Gentleman make that point several times on the radio and television, but the amendments are vital. I hope that he will give them due consideration.

Brian Wilson: The hon. Gentleman has tabled two amendments and I can reassure him on both. Amendment No. 51 would require the Government to consult the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales prior to making the regulation on nuclear security, for which the clause provides an enabling power. Amendment No. 52 requires reports to be made on the security of the civil nuclear industry.
	Let me deal with amendment No. 51. As regards Scotland, nuclear security is a reserved matter. In Wales, too, it is a non-devolved function. It is dealt with on a United Kingdom-wide basis. I assure the hon. Gentleman that administrative arrangements at a working level are set out in the concordats between my Department, the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales. They involve consultation on some reserved and non-devolved matters. Under those arrangements, my Department will consult the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales on the nuclear security regulations that we intend to introduce shortly.
	On amendment No. 52, I agree that it is important for the Government to report regularly to the House and the other place on key security matters in the civil nuclear industry, which is why that is already happening. I am not going to say what the hon. Gentleman suggested I would, although I will explain the mechanism for reporting that was in place prior to 11 September. The director of civil nuclear security makes an annual report to me. He is responsible for setting security standards for the industry and for enforcing compliance. His first report covering the Office of Civil Nuclear Security's first full year within the Department of Trade and Industry will be issued at the end of the current financial year. I assure the hon. Gentleman that it will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The report will also cover the work of the standing committee on police establishments, through which the director of civil nuclear security reviews and reports on policing at licensed nuclear sites that are policed by the UKAEA constabulary. The director made a report on the standing committee's work in June 2001 which was placed in the Library of both Houses.
	As there will be consultation with the two devolved Administrations and as a report will be made to Parliament through the mechanism that I described, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be reassured and feel able to withdraw his amendment.

Tam Dalyell: Could I bring to my hon. Friend's attention the question that I asked the Prime Minister on 29 January 1980 before the days of these ridiculous open questions? I asked
	"if she will make a statement on her latest discussions with Mr. van Agt, Prime Minister of Holland, on security at
	the joint conference project at
	"URENCO, Almelo, Holland".
	Almelo is one of the institutions specifically named in the Bill. Margaret Thatcher replied:
	"I have not spoken to Mr. van Agt since our meeting on 6 December 1979, when I made my concern about the Khan affair very clear to him. As I told the hon. Gentleman on 17 January, we will remain in close touch with the Netherlands and German Governments through diplomatic channels"—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1122.]

The Chairman: Order. I am not sure that I understand the relevance of the hon. Gentleman's comments on an amendment that deals with the Scottish Executive and the National Assembly for Wales.

Tam Dalyell: I apologise. I went out to check the details and thought that we were still on the subject of security.

The Chairman: No.

Elfyn Llwyd: Briefly, I am in broad terms encouraged by what the Minister says, although placing a copy of the report in the Library is not the same as consulting Parliament. I hope that we can build on that and ensure that there is a better dialogue. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Clause 77 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 78
	 — 
	Repeals relating to security of civil nuclear installations

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Tam Dalyell: I am making an important point; I would not be wearying the House if it were not.
	I then asked Margaret Thatcher:
	"Has there yet been a complete or candid explanation by the Dutch as to why, for four long years, their British and German partners were not told about a major security leak"—[Official Report, 29 January 1980; Vol. 977, c. 1123.]

The Chairman: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman again, but clause 78 deals with repeals relating to security of civil nuclear installations. Again, I am not sure that I get the connection between what the hon. Gentleman wishes to say and the matter that is before the House.

Tam Dalyell: If I could just have 30 seconds.

The Chairman: Order. If the hon. Gentleman is not sure how his comments connect to the clause, it is important, within the remaining two minutes, that we get on with the business that needs to be dealt with before 8 o'clock.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 78 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 79
	 — 
	Prohibition of disclosures in relation to nuclear security

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 161, in page 39, line 28, at end insert—
	'except that it shall not be an offence to disclose any information or thing concerning transport routes, frequency of journeys, or volume or type of material transported.'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 159, in page 39, line 34, at end insert—
	'(2A) In proceedings for an offence under this section it is a defence for the accused to show that the public interest in disclosure of the information relating to the transportation of nuclear material outweighed the public interest in not prejudicing the security of that material.'.

Norman Baker: May I thank you, Sir Alan, for the efficient way in which you have conducted this evening's business, which has allowed us to get to this amendment?
	My hon. Friends and I have concerns about the clause, which we believe is too widely drawn. The Government are committed to a Freedom of Information Act, which they have now delayed until 2005, but these provisions move in exactly the opposite direction.
	The Government are on to a good thing when they identify the need to make sure that nuclear installations are safe—nobody would disagree with that. Unfortunately, however, they have over-egged the pudding yet again by drawing the clause far too widely. That makes it difficult for legitimate political discussion about the nuclear industry to take place. We are concerned that the clause would prevent the release of information about the number and safety of nuclear movements, which take place by air and, in their thousands, by rail and road. It is important that people understand the scale of those movements and the danger of accidents—
	It being Eight o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Orders [19 and 21 November], put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Motion made, and Question put, That clauses 79 to 87 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 334, Noes 55.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clauses 79 to 87 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Sylvia Heal: I remind all hon. Members that under the programme agreed by the House, the Bill's Report stage will follow immediately after the conclusion of the Committee stage at 11 o'clock this evening. Arrangements have been made for an amendment paper to be prepared in advance of the commencement of the Report stage. The Public Bill Office will issue an unofficial amendment paper at 9.30 pm incorporating all amendments tabled by 9 pm. A final paper for Report stage will be issued shortly before 11 pm incorporating amendments received up to 10 pm.

Simon Hughes: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. Following your helpful announcement, it may assist the Committee and, later, the House to know that, on Report, it is expected that between 11 and 12 o'clock, Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members will wish to debate and vote on at least one amendment on the elusive clause 17 of last Wednesday. I hope that that will help colleagues to make arrangements later.

The First Deputy Chairman: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his point of order which, of course, will be noted.

Oliver Letwin: Further to that point of order, Mrs. Heal. I wish to put on the record the fact that it is an astonishing state of affairs for us to spend 15 minutes discussing that subject, which will eat into Third Reading. However, that is the best that we can do.

Norman Baker: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I wish to put it on record that, in relation to part 9, which has been debated, Liberal Democrat Members opposed clause 79, but not the whole group of clauses. Perforce, we had to vote as we did.

The First Deputy Chairman: We understand that that is precisely why the hon. Members were voting.

Clause 88
	 — 
	Fingerprinting of terrorist suspects

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Beverley Hughes: Clause 88 amends the Terrorism Act 2000 to allow fingerprints to be taken from a person detained under the Act to ascertain their identity. At present, fingerprints can be taken from a person detained under that Act only to establish whether he or she has been involved in certain offences under it or in acts of terrorism. Clearly, circumstances can arise in which the police know that the person that they are holding has committed an act of terrorism, but do not know their true identity. For example, a detained person may deliberately withhold their identity from the police or assume a false identity. Although the police have up to seven days to interview a suspect under the Act, valuable time could be wasted. Finding out someone's true identity could prevent acts from taking place.
	In England, Wales and Northern Ireland, an officer of the rank of at least superintendent will be able to authorise taking fingerprints from a person detained at a police station without his or her consent if they are satisfied that the fingerprints will allow him or her to be identified. In Scotland, a constable will be able to take or require fingerprints from a person if he is satisfied that they will be able to identify him or her. The clause also allows the police in Scotland to examine fingerprints or DNA samples retained under Terrorism Act powers when investigating a crime that, at that stage, is apparently non-terrorist. At the moment, those records can be searched only if the police are investigating a suspected terrorist offence. There is therefore a risk that they will miss connections between ordinary criminal offences, which may be committed as precursors to terrorist activity, and terrorist suspects. That change was introduced for England and Wales under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001.
	The clause is in the Bill to enhance police counter-terrorist operations by allowing police to use fingerprints to confirm the identity of terrorist suspects, and I believe that it should stand part.

Jeremy Corbyn: I understand why fingerprints should be taken, but can the Minister explain how long fingerprint records will be held in the event of the person under suspicion not being charged or imprisoned, and being released as an innocent person instead?

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, fingerprints can be kept indefinitely by the police. The provisions are outside the PACE framework, but I think that the same applies. However, I will get a definitive answer on that point for my hon. Friend.

James Paice: In her introduction, the Minister said that the clause deals with crime committed as a precursor to terrorist crime. How does one know in advance that a crime is a precursor to terrorist crime and would an individual be told that fingerprints were being taken because it is believed that the crime is such a precursor?

Beverley Hughes: Clearly, the police do not know; that is the point. That theme may be rehearsed during this debate and, indeed, a later one. However, the line between terrorist offences and ordinary criminal offences is not one that can be easily drawn. Certainly, when the police have someone in the police station who is under investigation and whom they are trying to identify in relation to criminal offences, they will not know whether those offences are connected to terrorist activity.
	I pointed out that the clause would give the powers that I described to the police in Scotland. Similar changes were introduced for England and Wales under the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001, so the Bill brings Scotland into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 88 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 89
	 — 
	Searches, examinations and fingerprinting: England and Wales

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 143, in page 47, line 17, after "station", insert—
	'in connection with a terrorist investigation'.

The First Deputy Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 144, in clause 90, page 49, line 12, after "station", insert—
	'in connection with a terrorist investigation'.
	No. 145, in clause 91, page 51, line 6, after "station", insert—
	'in connection with a terrorist investigation'.
	No. 146, in clause 92, page 52, line 11, after "station", insert—
	'in connection with a terrorist investigation'.
	No. 149, in clause 93, page 53, line 32, after "of", insert "terrorist".
	No. 150, in clause 94, page 55, line 17, after "of", insert "terrorist".

James Paice: As the Minister, unsurprisingly, foresaw in her last comments, we come to a major issue which runs throughout part 10. The first group of amendments deals with clauses 89 to 94. It seeks to insert the words "in connection with a terrorist investigation" to narrow the scope of these significant clauses to deal purely with terrorism.
	The Bill, of course, arises from the atrocities of 11 September. The general feeling across the country and the House was that we needed to ensure that our legislation was adequate for the authorities in this country to combat terrorism from whichever direction it may come and in whatever form it may be practised. We must be able to deal with all those who may be involved, or may try to be involved, in terrorism.
	On that basis, the Opposition gave the Government their assurance that we would co-operate in getting such anti-terrorist legislation through the House as soon as possible. However, we did not, and I would not wish it to be believed that we did, give the Government a Blunkett undertaking—a Freudian slip—a blanket undertaking that any measure that they sought to introduce in the guise of anti-terrorist legislation would automatically get our agreement. I can tell the Committee that that is not the case. That is what lies behind this group of amendments.
	The Minister rightly said on clause 88 that it is not always easy to know in advance what is terrorism and what is not. That is the nub of most of the amendments to part 10. In that case, why are the Government bothering to change the anti-terrorist legislation in clauses 89 onwards, given that these clauses represent a significant extension of what is known as the PACE Act? That is not a narcissistic statement.
	I was struck by the fact that earlier this evening, the Government moved amendments to clauses 58 and 75, which deal with pathogens and toxins, to restrict those clauses to issues relating to terrorism. Thus in one part of the Bill the Government recognise the need to narrow the context to deal purely with terrorist issues, but the clauses in part 10 go well beyond that. Clause 89 covers searches, examinations and fingerprinting in England and Wales, and the provisions are repeated in clause 90 with reference to Northern Ireland.
	Those clauses create huge new powers for police forces to search for any form of identifying mark. They are not specified, but we can all imagine that they include birthmarks, tattoos and various other marks or blemishes that could be used to identify a person. If that were done solely for the purpose of linking the person to a terrorist act or a suspected or imminent terrorist act, that would be fine, but as these and subsequent clauses are currently drafted, they could be applied to any aspect of crime, however minor.
	The provisions allow the police—albeit with the authorisation of an officer of the rank of inspector—to search or examine someone detained in a police station. The police can search or examine him for identifying marks, and, under subsequent clauses, photograph him and require the removal of disguises. Provided that an offence has been committed serious enough to warrant the person's detention at a police station, the Government are giving the police those powers.
	We accept that there is an argument for the police to have such powers. There are also strong arguments against, particularly on the grounds of civil liberties and overweening police powers. However, we do not accept that the Bill is the appropriate vehicle for the granting of those powers. The Bill is about terrorism and its prevention and detection. It is not about extending police powers and extending PACE to cover all manner of other issues.
	As the Minister well knows, we expect a police reform Bill later in the Session. It was announced in the Queen's Speech, we believe that it is still on its way, and we expect a White Paper on the subject even before Christmas. It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Government accept our amendments so that the clauses would apply only if the person were detained in a police station in connection with a terrorist investigation, which is a fairly broad statement of purpose.
	If the Government wish to introduce the powers more widely, they should advance the arguments for that in the White Paper and include the powers in the police reform Bill, which we hope will have considerably more time for debate. We are concerned that the Government have cast this Bill much more widely than many of us expected when we vouchsafed our support for the principle of anti-terrorist legislation.
	Because of the inevitable constraints on time—I shall not rehearse those arguments now—it behoves the Government to ensure that the Bill addresses only those matters that rightly should be addressed in it. It is not the appropriate vehicle for the huge extension of police powers so dramatically evidenced by clauses 89 to 94. Such an extension should be considered on another occasion, when more time is available.

Norman Baker: I rise to support the comments of the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), to whose amendment I and Liberal Democrat colleagues have appended our names. We entirely support the thrust of his argument, irrespective of the merits of the extra powers, although we have our doubts about whether they are merited and whether they give too much to the law enforcement agencies and too little respect to civil liberties.
	Irrespective of those doubts, we believe that the Government are abusing their position by seeking to introduce to so-called emergency legislation intended to deal with a terrorist incident, run-of-the-mill criminal matters that, as the hon. Gentleman said, are more appropriate to a police or criminal justice Bill. It is perhaps telling that the title of the Bill includes the word "crime". I am reminded that the emergency Bill that we considered after the IRA bombing in Birmingham in the early 1970s was 15 clauses long. This Bill, in its putative state, was 40 clauses long, and that total has now multiplied into 125 clauses.
	If the Government want all-party support for measures to deal with terrorism, they will find it throughout the House, on their Benches, the Conservative Benches and on ours. However, if they seek to piggyback important anti-terrorist measures with a range of other bits and pieces that are lying around the Home Office cupboard, they must expect hon. Members in all parts of the House to be sceptical and angry about abuse of their position.
	I want to draw the Minister's attention to the comments of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has considered these clauses. I hope that the Government are not going merely to wash away the Committee, which is distinguished. I make that comment even though I serve on the Committee, which has other distinguished members. It is formed of experts from both Houses and was established by the Government expressly to consider such matters. If they are to ignore the advice of a Committee that they have set up, one wonders why it is there.

Patsy Calton: Does my hon. Friend agree that any changes in policing in Northern Ireland should be made in the spirit of the Patten report? Not making such changes in that spirit could cause needless tensions in the reform of policing in Northern Ireland.

Norman Baker: I agree with my hon. Friend, who takes her interest in Northern Ireland very seriously. A further issue to bear in mind is that, when we introduce rushed proposals in a delicate situation such as that in Northern Ireland, we must be very careful that the good work done there by the Government and their predecessors is not upset. We know how difficult it is to get matters right in Northern Ireland politics and legislation.
	I return the Minister to the comments of the Human Rights Committee. In dealing with clauses 88 to 92, it states:
	"We are concerned about such provisions relating to the powers of the police being hurried through Parliament as part of a Bill which purports to be aimed primarily at taking emergency measures in respect of terrorism."
	Those comments are entirely consistent with the point that I am making and which the hon. Member for South–East Cambridgeshire made a moment ago. The Committee also notes:
	"We are particularly concerned that the Bill does not make clear the steps (if any) which would be taken to ensure that the regime covering the taking, storage, cross-matching, retention, disclosure and destruction of such photographs"—
	the photographs to which the clauses refer—
	"will contain safeguards sufficient to ensure that the process as a whole, and each stage in it, would meet the justifying requirements of Article 8(2)."
	In conclusion, the Committee states:
	"We regard the provisions relating to police powers contained in clauses 88 to 92 of the Bill as being in need of additional safeguards and mature consideration, and accordingly draw them to the attention of each House."
	Of course, the Bill has been rushed though very quickly, but I think that the report was published about a week and a half ago. I am interested in how seriously the Government took the Committee's comments. Do they agree that additional safeguards are necessary, having given its recommendation mature consideration? Do they intend to introduce additional safeguards in the light of the Committee's recommendations, or are they simply going to say, "These people are a damn nuisance and we have no interest in what they say"? Will they say merely, "We're right, we know what we're doing and we have had the proper advice, so the rest of the House, whether the Members in question are Liberal Democrats, Conservatives or Labour Back Benchers, do not have much to say in the matter"? I hope that the Minister will tell me that I am entirely wrong on that point and that the Government are giving due cognisance to the views of the Human Rights Committee and will accordingly recommend safeguards when the Bill reaches the House of Lords, even if they will not do so now.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be very brief. I hope that the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker) is entirely wrong in his suspicions, but I suspect that he is correct.
	Will my hon. Friend the Minister deal with two points? First, in relation to the previous clause, I mentioned the holding of fingerprint information. It is perfectly reasonable that, when the police take fingerprints that are subsequently proven to be unnecessary, as the suspect has been released and no charge has been proffered, there is no case for keeping them; otherwise the police can have a permanent record on somebody who is wholly innocent of all suspicions, and one then has to ask why any records of any sort are being kept. During the passage of the prevention of terrorism Act, many of us suspected that it was intended more to enable the police to haul people in and keep records on them than to lead to serious prosecutions.
	Secondly, the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, to which hon. Members have referred, reveals serious anxieties about the way in which clause 89 and associated provisions have suddenly been thrust into the Bill when they have little to do with its purported intention. It is supposed to deal with a terrorist emergency; indeed, hon. Members have been asked to decide that there is such an emergency. It would therefore be helpful if the Government withdrew clause 89 and the associated provisions.
	If there are genuine anxieties about fingerprinting and right of access, the Government should introduce a separate measure that can be properly scrutinised. It is inappropriate to deal with such a major topic in a 15-minute debate in the middle of considering an enormous Bill that is being rushed through at inordinate speed.

Beverley Hughes: The anxieties that have been expressed by the Joint Committee on Human Rights and hon. Members have not been ignored or treated lightly. That is far from the case. The need for the clauses and powers that relate to establishing identity were considered carefully. Several points justify their retention.
	Clause 89 and the associated provisions simply replicate existing police powers for investigating crime at the point when people are detained and their identity is not known, either because they withhold co-operation or because they have given a false identity. That applies to only a small number of cases. Most people co-operate with the police in saying who they are. However, that does not happen in a small number of cases and valuable time may be lost.

Oliver Letwin: Does that small number of cases involve terrorism?

Beverley Hughes: Those cases may involve terrorism. I shall talk about that later, but people may be detained for another offence, which is not a terrorist offence, but may be shown in the fullness of time to be linked to terrorist acts.

John Burnett: Will those powers be used and initiated in connection with terrorist investigations?

Beverley Hughes: As I said, I shall deal with that point later. However, the powers that we are considering will be available to the police when they have detained someone in connection with a crime that is not a terrorist offence.

John Burnett: I believe that I understand the Minister. However, will the investigations or powers be initiated in connection with terrorist investigations? We want to know about their initiation.

Beverley Hughes: As I said, the powers relate to establishing identity. If someone is detained on suspicion of involvement with terrorism and refuses to disclose identity, or gives a false identity, the powers will be initiated.

James Paice: I suspect that there will be several interventions on the Minister. She said that the powers relate to identification, but I could draw her attention to many other aspects of the clauses. They do not simply cover identification. Clause 89(9) states:
	"A photograph taken under this section—
	(a) may be used by, or disclosed to, any person for any purpose related to the prevention or detection of crime, the investigation of an offence or the conduct of a prosecution".
	That has nothing to do with identity.

Beverley Hughes: Certainly, once a photograph has been taken, it may be retained by the police and used for those purposes. The original taking of the photograph, and the powers in the Bill that allow the police to take it, are for the purposes of identification. The information collected, be it a photograph or a fingerprint, can be retained and used in the subsequent investigation of other crimes or acts of terrorism. The power relates, initially, to the need to identify people.
	I ask hon. Members to think about the practicalities of the circumstances in which the police have detained someone without knowing who it is. At that point, the police do not know what they are dealing with, in relation either to the person or to the offences that the person might have committed.

Norman Baker: If, having photographed somebody, a law enforcement agency such as the police discovered that the person had no connection whatsoever with terrorism, would the photographs be destroyed?

Beverley Hughes: No, they would not be destroyed. Consistent with existing provisions, fingerprints or photographs will be able to be retained and used in the investigation of further offences, whether they are criminal or terrorist offences. That is the law at the moment. We are not giving a new power to the police; we are simply applying the powers that pertain at the moment to these new powers.

Jeremy Corbyn: Will the Minister tell the House what the Home Office's recommendation is to police authorities as to the length of time that they should keep records on people against whom all suspicion has evaporated, in relation to any offence, in the eyes of the police?

Beverley Hughes: Under the current legislation, such records can be kept indefinitely. The Bill will not change those circumstances.

Norman Baker: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: I would like to make some progress on the arguments that I want to put to hon. Members.
	When the police are holding someone in a police station without knowing who it is—either because the person will not co-operate or because he has given a false identity—they do not know what they are dealing with. They do not know whether the person has been involved in terrorist acts, or whether the reasons for detaining—[Interruption.] Well, let us take a specific example, if hon. Members are finding this difficult to understand.
	Let us take the example in which someone has been brought into a police station and detained because he was trespassing on the property of a public utility, and has refused to divulge his identity. Clearly, the reasons for his trespassing could be many and varied. They could involve a range of criminal offences, sabotage or the planting of a bomb on those premises in relation to a terrorist activity.
	At that point, because the police do not know who the person is, they cannot begin to identify the kind of person with whom they are dealing or what that person might have been seeking to do. It is, therefore, critical that the identity of the person should be discovered in the shortest possible time, and that the police should have the powers to enable them to establish that identity. If, in that example, someone had already planted a bomb, time would be of the essence. The police would be doing many things at that point, but one thing that they would surely need to do would be to establish the identity of that person.

James Paice: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. As she describes it, that is perfectly reasonable, but she is on very dangerous ground, even with the example she gives.
	Under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, this Government have made it a criminal offence to trespass on private ground in a number of situations. Therefore, in theory, what the Minister has said could apply to somebody caught trespassing with a dog off a lead in Snowdonia. That is a criminal offence according to her Government's legislation and her remarks apply to it, but what about somebody arrested for a road traffic offence? Is she suggesting that, under these proposals, somebody detained in a police station for any criminal offence—perhaps an ordinary traffic offence—must be subject to all those procedures as it is vaguely possible that it may one day be proven that they had some link with a terrorist activity? In the ordinary balance of events, that is highly unlikely.

Beverley Hughes: Let me give the hon. Gentleman another example, which is relevant. He mentioned road traffic incidents. In 1997, a group of three Algerian people were arrested in London for a road traffic offence. The circumstances of the case are that there were explosives in the back of the van. In the ensuing incident, the police officer was shot, so what brought that person—

John Burnett: Will the Minister give way?

Beverley Hughes: No, I shall finish my point.
	A road traffic infringement brought that person to police attention and the activities in which that person was engaged are exactly those against which the police would want to use these powers. They would use them to identify the driver of the truck.

James Paice: But the Terrorism Act 2000, coupled with clause 88, which we have just passed, achieve precisely that objective. Of course, any sensible police officer who stops a car and finds explosives in the back will suspect nefarious activity, and probably terrorism, but I contend that those powers already exist in that context. They do not need the proposed draconian extension.

Beverley Hughes: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I outlined in the trespass example, we are discussing the circumstances in which somebody is detained, albeit on a minor charge or allegation, but refuses to give his identity and prevents the police from identifying him. If the police do not know who he is, they will not know what they are dealing with. It is imperative that the police have powers to identify that person in the shortest possible time. At that point, they would not know whether the limit of the transgression by a person who refused to give his identity was walking his dog and trespassing or being involved in a road traffic incident. If the person will not give his identity, the police cannot establish whether any other investigation ought to be pursued.

John Burnett: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. She has given examples: a trespass on property owned by a public utility, someone planting a bomb and a truck with explosives in the rear. Surely no police power would be curbed or curtailed by accepting the amendments. In other words, the powers exercised must be justified as being in connection with a terrorist investigation. Prima facie, in those examples surely a terrorist investigation is warranted.

Beverley Hughes: Not in the trespass example. As I have tried to make clear to hon. Members, when the police detain a person who refuses to disclose his identity, they will not know which possible scenario that person is involved in, whether it be robbery or something more than robbery. The police do not have the benefit of hindsight. They have to deal with a person in a police station who will not disclose his identity. The establishment of the detained person's identity is critical to the police's ability to discriminate between those scenarios and the activities that he may have been involved in.
	There is a link between crime, especially organised crime, and terrorist activities. There is a great deal of organised crime in this country, including counterfeiting, trading in counterfeit goods, smuggling cigarettes, alcohol and drugs, and trading in drugs. The security services estimate that about half of all organised crime groups, certainly in Northern Ireland, have links with terrorist groups. Organised crime fuels and funds terrorist activities.
	If a person is detained on suspicion of being involved in organised crime or smuggling large quantities of cigarettes, drugs or alcohol and he refuses to give his identity, the likelihood of his activity being used to fuel and fund terrorism is even greater. It is a serious impediment to the police's investigations and to their discovery of terrorist activities if they cannot identify that person.
	We have considered carefully the points made by the Joint Committee, which have been reiterated by hon. Members in this debate. However, it is critical that the police have these additional powers because of the strong connection between crime and terrorist activity, because it is not possible for the police to draw a firm line between various crimes and terrorism, and because of the small number of cases in which the police cannot identify a suspect or get his co-operation to do so. Therefore, we will not accept the Opposition's amendments.

James Paice: It has been a useful debate. I am pleased that we tabled these amendments, not least because they have brought out from the Minister some elucidating remarks about the Government's attitude to this whole issue. If we were in any doubt about the wisdom of our amendments when we started, we were certainly in no doubt at the end of her contribution. The logic of her argument is that the police should have universal stop-and-search powers because anyone could be a terrorist. That is true, but anyone who is detained by a policeman in a police station—

Lewis Moonie: And who refuses to give his details.

James Paice: That is not correct. I suggest that the hon. Gentleman read the clauses, because the provisions apply whether or not consent is given. I hope that he is better informed when we get to the Ministry of Defence provisions.
	The clause provides that anyone who is brought to a police station and detained there for any crime—it could be a footling traffic offence—is subject to all these provisions. The examples that the Minister gave do not stand up. Of course, if there is justification for believing that terrorism could be involved, it is perfectly right and proper for the police to have these powers. There is no dispute about that—certainly not from Conservative Members. The dispute is over the idea that those powers should be all-embracing and apply to anyone in any circumstances.
	If someone has been caught trespassing on a public utility—assuming the offence is of any significance—a police officer may, especially in a period of heightened security, suspect that the person could have planted a bomb in a power station or wherever. That is reasonable—and I sincerely hope that if a van containing three Algerians and explosives in the back were stopped, any reasonable police officer would assume that terrorism might be involved. Neither case, however, negates the need for the amendments, which refer to detention
	"in connection with a terrorist investigation".
	The Minister's examples could stand and still be covered by our proposals.
	I believe that the arguments are overwhelming. Terrorism itself should be dealt with in the Bill, but not the proposed widespread expansion of police powers. A few moments ago, the Minister said that the Bill allowed the police to discriminate. It allows them to discriminate, but does not oblige them to do so. That, too, is a serious civil liberties concern. Unless the police are obliged to be reasonable in the use of their powers, there is a risk of excessive use of those powers.
	The Minister said that more than 50 per cent. of organised crime related to the funding of terrorism. That may be the case in Northern Ireland—I am not sufficiently knowledgable about Northern Ireland to dispute such a claim—but it is a pretty sweeping statement to make about the rest of the United Kingdom. If the Minister is right, what she said puts things in context, but I suspect she wishes that she had not said it.
	In any event, the Minister failed to undermine the logic of our arguments. Indeed, I feel that the example she gave enhanced our case that the provision should be limited to those detained in connection with a terrorist investigation. In view of her intransigence, we wish to press the matter to a vote.

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 199, Noes 330.

Question accordingly negatived.
	Clause 89 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clauses 90 to 92 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 93
	 — 
	Powers to require removal of disguises: Great Britain

Andrew Bennett: I beg to move amendment No. 124, in page 53, line 31, leave out lines 31 to 33 and insert—
	'(a) incidents involving serious violence may take place in any locality in his area, and'.
	Clause 93 provides powers for the police to demand the removal of items of clothing which officers believe are designed to conceal identity. [Interruption.]

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. The hon. Gentleman is moving an amendment.

Andrew Bennett: How often does the Minister expect this power to be exercised? What does she expect to be covered by the requirement for someone to remove something that could be considered a disguise and by the power of the police to hang on to that item?
	I assume that the provisions cover clothing, but what about fancy dress, for example? Many people involved in demonstrations, wanting to make a political point, put on various disguises. Can the police require those to be removed? What about wigs? Do the provisions cover religious dress?
	The amendment would ensure that if the Government want to take these draconian powers, there should be evidence that serious violence, not merely an offence, is likely to occur. There is a good chance that some offence will be committed during a demonstration, but it is unlikely to be sufficiently serious for a police officer to demand the removal of a disguise or fancy dress.
	The Minister must explain to the House in what circumstances and to what degree the powers will be used. The safeguard should be that it will be used only in circumstances in which the person authorising the exercise of the power expects serious violence to occur. We must remember that the powers will be exercised on any occasion by an individual police officer, and most people accept that some police officers are not always as sensitive as they might be.

Norman Baker: I share some of the concerns which have been raised by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett). I am surprised at the Government pursuing this line, as they already have powers, under the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, regarding the removal of disguises or face coverings. A senior officer can authorise the removal of coverings where he or she reasonably believes that incidences involving serious violence may take place in a locality. That seems a reasonable provision, and to extend it as the Bill suggests is somewhat worrying. There are already measures to deal with serious violence, and that is what terrorism and terrorist attacks are. However, as we have already seen, the Bill has been hijacked in order to bring in a whole range of powers that have nothing in particular to do with terrorism. The clause seems to be one of them.
	Face masks can already be removed in cases of serious violence. The Minister seeks to extend that provision to less serious offences, and to enable its authorisation by police officers of a more junior rank.
	Although the Minister does not much like the Human Rights Committee, I draw her attention to its comments because they are valid. The Committee notes:
	"The provisions risk being seen as authorizing an unreasonable and disproportionate interference with their dignity, their right to respect for private life under Article 8 of the ECHR."
	The Committee was drawing attention to people who might have a reason for wearing a face covering, for example, Muslim women.
	We are happy for Muslim women voluntarily to remove what the Minister might describe as their "disguises"; indeed, we might celebrate that, but it is a different matter to be required to remove them.

Caroline Flint: In my speech on Second Reading, I mentioned that in several countries—Qatar, for example—women are asked to remove their face covering when they want to take part in an election. It is not unusual in cultures where face coverings are worn to ask for the removal of the veil for the specific purpose of identification, as long as that is done sensitively and by a female.

Norman Baker: With respect, if we are taking lessons in human rights and civil liberties from states in the middle east, we need to be rather careful. We should base our system on what we believe correct—a tradition of civil liberties established over many hundreds of years. With due respect to Qatar—a country with which I am not familiar—the importation of its powers on human rights and civil liberties should be considered with some trepidation.

Diane Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a difference between the removal of a person's face covering by someone of the same culture, as part of the performance of their civic duty, and its forcible removal in a heated atmosphere, because the wearer is suspected of a crime, by someone who is likely to be from a different culture?

Norman Baker: I am extremely grateful for that accurate intervention. In one case, the removal of the face covering is voluntary and in the other it is required. We need to make that point to the Minister.
	The Human Rights Committee stated:
	"We consider that the measures relating to the powers of police to remove face coverings should be subjected to the most careful scrutiny on human rights grounds".
	Again, the Committee expresses some trepidation, but the Minister appears to want to wash it away as irrelevant.
	The Minister must be careful when she dismisses comments from both sides of the House, from various Committees and from bodies outside. If there is a problem as regards face coverings, I suggest that it is not a terrorist problem—it relates to police powers. It might have more to do with hunt saboteurs, and we should not be dealing with hunt saboteurs in a Bill such as this.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief as, unfortunately, we have much to discuss this evening.
	When the Minister replies to the debate, will she tell us exactly how she defines the disguise that has to be removed? The word "disguise" can mean many things: for example, do beards and facial hair constitute a form of disguise? In the current anti-Taliban atmosphere, would my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) and I be hauled into a police station for someone to set about us with a razor—[Hon. Members: "Yes!"] Now we see the Committee's love of liberty.

David Winnick: My hon. Friend's beard is not long enough.

Jeremy Corbyn: Indeed; I should not be accused of being Taliban. However, we obviously need some definition. A situation might arise in which an unimaginative police officer—perish the thought that such a person should exist—decided that all bearded men were in disguise and should thus have their beards shaved off so that they could be checked. My hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish put the following point to me earlier: what if a person was wearing a bandage for genuine medical reasons, but the arresting officer decided that it was in fact a disguise?
	I could go on and on, giving examples in which the fevered atmosphere of people being stopped and told to remove their disguises could set off an extremely unpleasant chain of events. Many hon. Members, certainly those of us on the Government Benches, will have taken part in demonstrations of various sorts over the years, and know that a carnival atmosphere sometimes surrounds them. What happens then if someone says, "Hang on, you're wearing a disguise"?
	On one occasion, during a demonstration outside the British Aerospace annual meeting, a gentleman who looked for all the world like General Pinochet was standing with the Campaign Against the Arms Trade, but then crossed the road to take part in the annual meeting. The officials who were organising the meeting thought that he was an important military gentleman and promptly opened the doors, ushered him in and offered him a seat on the front row, assuming that someone like General Pinochet would probably spend a lot of money at British Aerospace. In fact, he was a valuable part of the demonstration: he got it on the front page of a lot of newspapers. Is that the sort of person who would be arrested and told to remove that disguise?
	Under existing legislation, the police can require the removal of a disguise only if they think that violence has been committed. The proposal will give far too much unfettered power to the police, and the Human Rights Committee has suggested that it should be reconsidered. Because of the results of the last Division, which I regret, the power to take fingerprints will be widely available to the police, so why on earth will they need to go to the lengths of arguing about the removal of disguises with people who would become hostile to what the police are trying to achieve?

Diane Abbott: I am listening with rapt attention to my hon. Friend's usual lucid and incisive contribution. Does he agree that the proposal is yet another that gives this rag bag of a Bill every appearance of being the outcome of Home Office officials having cleared their in-trays of every draconian and authoritarian measure that they can think of and ramming them through the House under the pretext of a national emergency?

Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with most of what my hon. Friend says, but this is not just a matter of Home Office officials' in-trays; rather, it is as if a storeroom of Bills has been festering for a long time and someone has had the bright idea of pushing them through, given the opportunity—and this is the opportunity. After the declaration of some sort of state of national emergency, the Bill has been drafted to introduce very draconian legislation—

The First Deputy Chairman: Order. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will now return to addressing his remarks to the amendment.

Jeremy Corbyn: In disguise, the Government were trying to introduce such legislation. I ask the Minister to remove the disguise from the Bill by removing the clause and thinking about it a bit more. She should think about how it might work on the ground and about the problems that it might cause if people refuse to co-operate with the police because they feel that their requests are totally unreasonable. During some sort of carnival atmosphere, a policeman might come along and say, "Take that mask off" for whatever reason, and we might end up with a worse situation, rather than a better one.

Annabelle Ewing: These provisions will not apply to Scotland if Government amendments Nos. 63, 64 and 67 are agreed tonight. I sincerely hope that those amendments are passed because, as a Scottish National party Westminster MP, I believe that the best place to consider legislative changes to Scots law is in the Scots Parliament. [Hon. Members: "Hear, hear."] I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their support. I was somewhat surprised that those amendments seem to have been tabled at the eleventh hour, so I wonder what consultations have taken place with the appropriate Scottish Ministers in preparing the Bill.

Tam Dalyell: Am I wrong in thinking that there has been an agreement by the Scottish Executive, endorsed by the Scottish Parliament, that they would go along with what Westminster decided in these matters?

Annabelle Ewing: The hon. Gentleman is correct to say that the Scottish Parliament passed a so-called Sewel motion, introduced by the Scottish Executive on 15 November. Under that motion, most of the responsibility for considering huge swathes of important changes to Scots law, including Scots criminal law, was passed to Westminster, but, in fact, on this matter, an eleventh-hour agreement seems to have been reached with the United Kingdom Government to proceed in the way that I have described.
	On the substance of the issue, it seems from reading the report of the debate in the Scots Parliament that the Scottish Executive were swayed by the lukewarm reaction of the Association of Chief Police Officers in Scotland. If, because of the practical difficulties, the association managed to convince the Scottish Executive to reclaim jurisdiction over the matter in the Scots Parliament, what was the reaction of equivalent bodies elsewhere in the UK?

Beverley Hughes: From the comments of hon. Members and the way the views of the Human Rights Committee were cited, there seems to be some confusion about what clause 93 will do.
	I realise that some hon. Members understand this point, but the clause will not introduce the powers; it will simply alter the threshold in the existing law as to the circumstances in which the police can invoke them. At the moment, under section 60 of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, as amended by the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, an inspector can authorise officers to stop and search in a particular defined locality when officers reasonably believe that incidents involving serious violence might take place or that people are carrying dangerous instruments or offensive weapons. That initial authorisation will last for 24 hours, with an extension possible for a further 24 hours.
	Section 60(4A) of the 1994 Act gives the police powers to require the removal of face coverings that an officer reasonably believes are worn for the purpose of concealing identity. The officer can also seize any of the items involved.
	Clause 93 will amend the face-coverings powers only so that authorisation can be given when an inspector reasonably believes that activities may take place in a particular area that are likely to involve the commission of offences. It will not introduce the powers that some hon. Members are concerned about; it will lower the threshold for situations in which the police can invoke the powers.

Norman Baker: I accept that the clause will lower the threshold, and I hope that I made that clear in my comments. However, why will it lower the threshold to take in what will be lesser crimes?

Beverley Hughes: It will lower the threshold because the police believe that the tactic of wearing face coverings has become increasingly widespread during all kinds of events that could lead to public disorder. The circumstances in which the police believe that they may be able to predict serious violence are also much wider than that. Furthermore, the circumstances in which people use the tactic of wearing face coverings to hide their identity and want to use the camouflage that a big public event might give them as a vehicle for terrorist activities are much wider than was hitherto thought to be the case.

Diane Abbott: rose—

Beverley Hughes: I shall give way in a moment, but I want to pursue the point.
	A police officer must believe that a person is wearing face coverings of one kind or another to disguise his or her identity before the item that is covering the face can be removed. After I have taken the intervention, I shall come to some of the concerns expressed by hon. Members about religious dress.

Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend read carefully from her brief that face coverings were becoming more prevalent. In Hackney we are on the cutting edge of such matters. We have marches—for example, by the PKK, the Socialist Workers party and Jewish ex-service men—that could turn to public disorder on any day of the week. I have not seen an increased prevalence of face coverings on demonstrations on the streets of Hackney. Perhaps the Minister could raise her head from the brief and cite examples of the greater prevalence of face coverings on marches and demonstrations.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend is the master of the patronising remark, but it is no substitute for a good debating point. I am afraid she lost it there. As a matter of interest, I was not reading from my brief; those were my own words—not that she will be interested in that.
	I understand the concern expressed by hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Bennett) who tabled the amendment, about the items that can be removed. The clause makes it clear that the item has to be removable. Someone's hair, including facial hair, is clearly not something that the police can ask to be removed.
	On a more serious note, concerns about religious dress are covered in depth in the extracts from the guidance for PACE that determine how officers will execute the power.

Diane Abbott: On a point of order, Mrs. Heal. I asked the Minister to give concrete examples of the increased use of face coverings, but she moved on without replying. Is that in order?

The First Deputy Chairman: That is not a point of order; it is a matter for debate.

Beverley Hughes: I will deal with that point in a moment.
	The guidance for PACE sets out the relevant circumstances in detail. It gives the example of a Muslim woman who wears a face covering for religious purposes. It makes it clear that wearing an item as a normal part of religious or cultural dress would not of itself satisfy the requirement that the officer must believe that the person is wearing the item wholly or mainly to conceal his or her identity. It would not be open to a police officer to remove a veil or face covering if someone is concealing their face in the dress that is associated with their culture. To do that, the officer would also have to believe that the person was trying to disguise their identity.

Norman Baker: The police officer might conclude that someone is wearing a piece of religious headgear to persuade the police that it is such an item. The officer might then have to offend someone. It is the same point as the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn) made about the band that wraps around the head. How will a police officer know the difference in those circumstances and what safeguards are in place to ensure that mistakes do not occur?

Beverley Hughes: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has so little faith in police officers that he thinks they would exercise the power crudely, without taking into account the issues that they must consider when making a judgment that could be tested in court if it is thought that it has been used wrongly.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Minister referred to violence that could be predicted in the future. Under existing legislation, if there has been a violent incident—a bank robbery, a shooting, a bomb or whatever—it is reasonable for the police to want to question anybody and everybody who was near it. That would be acceptable, but my hon. Friend seems to be extending that power a little in that the police have only to say that they think it would be useful, because of any potential incident, to be able to require the removal of any covering.

Beverley Hughes: I shall explain to hon. Members, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish requested, the circumstances in which the power will be used and how many times the existing power, with its threshold of serious violence, has been used. During the May day demonstrations, central London was designated an area where face masks could be seized. That gives hon. Members an idea of the judgment that the police are using in these circumstances. They are considering an event that will take place in a specific location which could be used not only to indulge in violent behaviour but to commit many other offences. It would clearly be open to people whose motives were associated with terrorism or serious crime to use the camouflage of a large public event to perpetrate certain acts.

Caroline Flint: We are very fortunate in this country that people are able to go on public demonstrations and make their views known. In all the campaigns and demonstrations in which I have taken part I have never felt the need to hide my identity. Does my hon. Friend agree, however, that people could use the privilege of being allowed to demonstrate near the House of Commons, the Ministry of Defence and secure institutions in the City of London to undertake surveillance and intelligence gathering using cameras and binoculars? If people are doing so, and using a disguise for their activities, it is reasonable to ask what they are doing and why they think a disguise is so important.

Beverley Hughes: My hon. Friend makes an important point, and in lowering the threshold the clause aims to give the police discretion in judging the events, locations and circumstances in which they feel they need to be able to ask people to remove their disguise so that their identity can be known. It is not unreasonable that the police should have that power.

Andrew Bennett: My hon. Friend gave us one example—the May day demonstrations in London. On how many other occasions did the police designate areas where masks could be removed? How often was the power used by individual constables during the May day demonstrations?

Beverley Hughes: I do not have the information to answer the second question. As far as I am aware, there has been one other circumstance in which the power to remove face masks was applied.
	Clearly, the police are not using that power frequently. They are using it when they judge that an event may be used by people with serious intent in relation to terrorist activities. It is important that the police have the power to ask people to remove their disguise when they believe that the covering is specifically to disguise identity. The clause uses the word "item", which means something that is removable, and does not refer to religious codes, to hair or to anything that does not completely obscure the face. For example, a red nose or a funny hat would not come within the purview of the clause. However, when someone covers their face and their identity is not visible, it is reasonable to allow the police to invoke that power.

Dominic Grieve: The Minister said that a red nose or a funny hat would not come into that category. Surely, however, under the current wording of the clause, anything that concealed identity, making it difficult for the police officer to identify someone, would have to be removed. Is not the Minister mistaken?

Beverley Hughes: Ultimately, that would be for the courts to decide, if there was a challenge. My point is that the police must use their judgment in exercising the power and must be held to account for it. If somebody was wearing something on their nose that obliterated most of their face, clearly they could be said to be concealing their identity. If they had a tiny red nose on the end of their own nose, it would not conceal their identity. We expect the police to be able to exercise their judgment.

Gerald Howarth: I was tempted to suggest that the proprietor of Harrods might seek to disguise himself as Father Christmas to avoid deportation. However, I wish to make a serious point in response to the important remarks of the hon. Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint). She gave an example in which the police might have to deal with someone in disguise, possibly religious. Surely, given that example, the police will be inhibited from taking appropriate action under the clause if they think that they will be challenged in court every time that they do so. The powers conferred on the police by the clause will be seldom used because the police will be afraid of being attacked for discriminating against people who are wearing religious disguise or religious garb.

Beverley Hughes: The fact that the police have not frequently used the powers is not an argument for their not having them at all. They have used them in circumstances in which they felt they were necessary. When the matter was raised in a Committee debate on what became the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, there was a substantial discussion. It is interesting that the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) argued strongly that the threshold which, in the Government's view, ought to anticipate offences involving serious violence, was too high. He pressed on the Government his own clause which, he said, was preferable and argued:
	"The Government's provisions are too narrow . . . That is a high test for the police to apply".—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 9 June 1998; c. 795.]
	The hon. Gentleman said that the police would be able to apply the test less frequently under the Government's clause than under the Opposition's new clause. I apologise to the hon. Gentleman if I have embarrassed him but I want to make the point that, when the issue was previously debated, Opposition Members expressed the serious view that the circumstances in which police could invoke that power needed to be wider for the police to have the necessary judgment to protect people and to ensure that individuals could not use disguise as a vehicle for a range of activities.
	I have certainly tried to address most of the points made by hon. Members who have spoken about the clause. I am surprised by the comments of some hon. Members who do not seem to trust the police to exercise those powers sensibly. I understand entirely the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish, but I urge him not to press his amendment to a vote. If he does so, it will be resisted.

Diane Abbott: I shall not prolong the debate; there are many important matters to be discussed tonight in this unfortunately curtailed debate. The clause is by no means the most troubling aspect of a troubling portmanteau of legislation. I listened with great care to the Minister's defence of the clause. She said that the clause had been included in response to a rising tide of people taking part in demonstrations wearing disguises. When asked to provide evidence of that rising tide, she could cite only two major London demonstrations.
	I do not believe that the Minister has made the case for giving the police increased powers by altering the threshold for the power to take away disguises. There can never be a need to give the police increased powers unnecessarily. As I said in an earlier intervention, this is just the kind of scrappy, ill-thought-out measure that will bring into disrepute the sounder, more solidly based measures in the Bill.

Andrew Bennett: I have not been convinced by the Minister, but I do not see that there is a great deal of purpose in pressing the amendment to a Division. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Beverley Hughes: I beg to move amendment No. 63, in page 54, line 29, at end insert—
	'(11) This section does not extend to Scotland.'.

Alan Haselhurst: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 64 and 67.

Beverley Hughes: The amendments relate to the situation in Scotland. The clause currently extends to Scotland, but the subject matter of the clause, criminal law and public order, is a devolved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. That means that it is for the Scottish Parliament to legislate on such matters for Scotland, unless it agrees that the UK Parliament should do so.
	As the hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) mentioned earlier, the Scottish Parliament has agreed, under the relevant Sewel motion which it passed last week, to the inclusion in the Bill of various matters on which it would have competence to legislate. However, it chose not to agree to the inclusion in the Bill of the powers to require the removal of disguises. Clause 93 and new section 60AA which it will insert in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 therefore will not extend to Scotland. The powers of the police in Scotland are being examined under the common law to see the extent to which they would already be available. In any event, Scottish Ministers have not ruled out future consideration of the need for such a measure by the Scottish Parliament.

Annabelle Ewing: I shall respond briefly to the Minister. As I said earlier, I fully support the amendments. Whereas the two other matters that form the subject of the retained powers dealt with by the Sewel motion in the Scottish Parliament were clearly not to be covered by the Bill, why was this third issue initially included in the Bill as applying to Scotland but, at the eleventh hour, magically deemed not to apply to Scotland? Perhaps the Minister can shed some light on that.

Beverley Hughes: That is a matter for the Scottish Parliament. As I understand it, the Scottish Parliament has been and still is looking closely at the common law in Scotland. The Parliament believes that there may already be common law powers to enable the police to take the relevant action. It was not possible to establish that in time, so the Scottish Parliament has taken the option of considering the matter at greater length and deciding whether further legislation of its own is needed. The matter is quite straightforward.
	Amendment agreed to.
	Amendment made: No. 64, in page 54, line 32, leave out subsection (3).—[Beverley Hughes.]
	Clause 93, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 94
	 — 
	Powers to require removal of disguises: Northern Ireland

Amendment made: No. 65, in page 56, line 6, at beginning insert "an offence under"—[Jane Kennedy.]
	Clause 94, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 95
	 — 
	Power to stop and search in anticipation of violence

Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.

Jane Kennedy: I want briefly to put it on record that the Government are taking this valuable opportunity to extend to Northern Ireland powers to stop and search in anticipation of violence, as identified in this clause and clause 96, making provision for Northern Ireland that is comparable to that made in section 60A of the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 and providing that the Secretary of State may make regulations to govern the retention and disposal of anything seized under clauses 94 and 95, such as knives or other offensive weapons. The clause extends those provisions to Northern Ireland.
	I hope that clauses 95 and 96 will be welcomed in all parts of the House. As I said, the measures will obviously benefit Northern Ireland and be welcomed there.

Alan Beith: I shall make an even briefer comment. I must say that the Minister has yet again given the game away. The phrase "the Government have taken the opportunity" is the story of the Bill from start to finish. Whatever arguments she can adduce in favour of extending the powers to Northern Ireland, that extension does not appear to be the result of the state of emergency in a Province where extensive terrorist legislation is already on the books.

Jane Kennedy: Simply to respond quickly to that point, Mr. Haselhurst—[Hon. Members: "Sir Alan."] I beg your pardon, Sir Alan. The clause takes to Northern Ireland the powers regarding knives that apply elsewhere in England and Wales. It is entirely appropriate for those powers to be available to the police in Northern Ireland. Knives were used with devastating effect on 11 September and it is nonsensical to suggest that the police in Northern Ireland should not have the powers available to them.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Clause 95 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Clause 96 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 97
	 — 
	Jurisdiction of MoD police

Chris Mullin: I beg to move amendment No. 57, in page 59, line 18, after "offence", insert—
	'involving the use or threat of violence against any person'.

The Chairman: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 166, in page 59, line 18, after "offence", insert—
	'which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism'.
	No. 165, in page 59, line 18, leave out second "or" and insert "and".
	No. 168, in clause 99, page 61, line 3, after "offence", insert—
	'which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism'.
	No. 167, in clause 99, page 61, line 3, leave out "or" and insert "and".

Chris Mullin: The amendment stands in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins).
	The clause seeks to extend the jurisdiction of the 3,700 MOD police. Proposed new subsection (3A) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 states that assistance of the MOD police must have been requested by a member of the regular police force, the British Transport police or the United Kingdom Atomic Energy Authority constabulary. New subsection (3C)(a) of that Act confers on the MOD police powers to act in any case where an officer has reasonable grounds to believe that any offence is being committed or is about to be committed.
	The clause goes some way further than dealing with terrorism, which is the main purpose of the Bill. Indeed, it goes some way further than the powers sought earlier this year in the Armed Forces Bill, in provisions that fell at the general election. They sought to give the MOD police powers to act outside MOD premises in life-threatening situations. The power that is now being sought is considerably wider, so the amendment seeks to limit the extension of MOD police powers to cases
	"involving the use or threat of violence".
	Even that provision goes far wider than terrorism, but I accept that there might be a difficulty in identifying in the early stages what might turn out to be a terrorist act.
	My purpose is to smoke out of Ministers an answer on exactly why this extensive increase in powers is necessary. I understand that Ministry of Defence police in garrison towns already co-operate well with local police. However, I assume that we want to avoid the position whereby MOD police can be used for everyday law enforcement or even in emergencies such as an industrial dispute when there is no conceivable terrorist threat.
	Who will determine the limits on the activities of MOD police given that the only restriction in the Bill is that they must be requested to act by a regular police officer? Once the request has been made, under whose authority will they act? What will prevent them from branching out on their own or stretching their mandate? Will they always or even usually be armed? Who will determine that?
	If MOD police are to be granted a large extension of powers, is it not right that they should be subject to the same democratic scrutiny as the regular police, who are inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate and subject to the Police Complaints Authority? I was glad that the Home Secretary said on Second Reading that he intended to extend the powers of the Police Complaints Authority to include MOD police.
	To help the Home Secretary, I have tabled new clause 3, which would enable him to take action forthwith. I have also tabled amendment No. 58, which would make MOD police subject to Her Majesty's inspectorate. I look forward to hearing the Minister's comments on those amendments in due course and on amendment No. 57 now.

James Paice: I have much sympathy with the comments of the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin). That will not surprise the Committee because I want to speak about amendments Nos. 166, 165, 168 and 167, which are tabled in the name of Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members. If the hon. Member for Sunderland, South is later convinced by the Minister's reply and decides to withdraw the amendment, I shall be less easily convinced. I may try to move formally one of the amendments that we tabled if an appropriate opportunity arises.
	All the amendments relate to the extension of the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police and the transport police. As the hon. Gentleman said, it is not the first time that the proposals have come before us, albeit in a different form. Proposed new subsections (3C) and (3D) of the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987 clearly suggest that a Ministry of Defence policeman or policewoman carrying identification, presumably a warrant card, and whether in uniform or not, could put themselves on duty and assume the powers of a constable if they have reasonable ground for suspecting that a crime is being or is about to be committed and that timing is critical. However, timing is always critical if one is to be sure of apprehending the culprit at the time. The same issues apply to the transport police, who are covered in clause 99.
	The clauses include no qualification of the offence that is being or is about to be committed. We have tabled two types of amendment to try to tackle that. I shall not repeat my earlier arguments about the Bill's scope being much wider than terrorism. I hope that the Committee will take it as read that that forms the background to the amendments. The hon. Member for Sunderland, South also made the point that the Bill covers much more than terrorism.
	Amendments Nos. 166 and 168 would restrict the assumption of a constable's powers to intervene when he suspects that an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed to occasions when he reasonably believes the crime to be terrorism. That is a method different from the one suggested by the hon. Member for Sunderland, South for dealing with the problem.
	The alternative amendments are Nos. 165 and 167. In case two tests of reasonableness are considered excessive in one subsection, those amendments would restrict the assumption of powers to circumstances in which the suspected offence might cost lives or cause personal injury. They would ensure that both paragraphs (a) and (b) of proposed new subsection (3C) were required, rather than allowing for an "either/or" provisions.
	In either case, the purpose is to restrict the assumption closer to the purpose of the Bill, which is to combat terrorism. Extension beyond the issue of terrorism is a matter not for the Bill but for the police reform Bill next year. What is being proposed is a back-door way of legislating for powers that were included in the Armed Forces Bill in the last Session, but which were dropped in the run-up to the general election because they were considered controversial. The fact that they were included in a Bill that did not directly target terrorism demonstrates that they were not directly related to terrorism. As the right hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Mr. Beith) said earlier, that rather gives the game away.

David Heath: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that, in the debate on the Armed Services Bill, the Secretary of State for Defence revealed that the genesis of the request for the MOD police to be given these additional powers came from the MOD police themselves? In other words, they wanted the powers because they wanted a role, rather than in any response to terrorist action or to anything else.

James Paice: I recall that matter to the extent that I read about it earlier today when I was preparing for this debate. From the same source, I also recall the hon. Member for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath) making that same point on that occasion. That was a highly controversial measure, but I remind the House that the Committee stage on the Floor of the House was guillotined. About two and a half hours were allowed for the whole Armed Forces Bill to be debated; its Committee stage received just over one hour of debate. I shall look briefly at what was said in the various debates.
	The report of the Select Committee on the Armed Forces Bill states:
	"we would be completely opposed to the MDP"—
	the Ministry of Defence police—
	"actively seeking to increase its involvement in general policing duties which are the proper responsibility of local police forces. We recommend that, if and when these powers are conferred, the number of incidents dealt with by the MDP under their new powers are scrupulously monitored".
	The same Select Committee report stated on another point of concern:
	"The proposals in the Bill do not alter the circumstances in which the MDP will carry firearms."
	A point made over and over again in those debates was that the MDP carry firearms much more frequently than members of most police authorities.

Alan Beith: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that the MOD police carry firearms on some military installations, and that there may be a necessity for them to go beyond the immediate curtilage of the base? However, they usually do so jointly with a civil police officer carrying firearms—two officers in the same car. The situation that we might now face is one in which MOD police, unaccompanied by civil police, will range round the countryside carrying firearms.

James Paice: The right hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. I do not want to come down specifically for or against the wisdom of extending the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police. I want instead to illustrate to the Committee that this is a highly controversial proposal that deserves far more debate than it is going to get in the next 57 minutes, maximum. I suspect that it will get a little less than that, bearing in mind the pressures for other items to be reached. This measure should not be included in the Bill.
	The much more recent Joint Committee on Human Rights report, published last week, states:
	"Until the extent to which the safeguards surrounding the procedures of Home Office police forces will apply to the Ministry of Defence Police, the British Transport Police, and the Atomic Energy Authority special constables in their new functions is clarified, we are unable to be confident that the Bill provides adequate safeguards against abuse of or interference in human rights."
	Returning to the Armed Forces Bill, I shall not take up the Committee's time by reading out the many objections expressed at that time, including those of the Police Federation, to the wisdom of extending the powers and jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence police in this way. Quite clearly, that is controversial. As the hon. Member for Sunderland, South said, what we have before us goes beyond clause 31 of that Bill. Last spring, Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean said:
	"A key change is that which will enable MDP officers to act on their own authority in an emergency in cases involving violence or the threat of violence, or where there is the risk of death or injury."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 April 2001; Vol. 625, c. 18.]
	This Bill goes much further.
	There are many concerns about the proposal. It represents a huge increase in the powers of the MOD police and I again submit to the Committee that it should not be subject to curtailed debate at this time. I readily accept that there are arguments in favour, but the arguments both for and against deserve much more time and they should be dealt with in the proper course of events when we consider the police reform Bill in spring next year.
	The proposal should not be dealt with under this Bill, which is why we have tried to help the Government by suggesting two amendments to narrow the debate to issues more closely related to terrorism. That is the subject of the Bill and the Government would not be prevented from extending the jurisdiction of the MOD police at some stage. If they want to legislate for that extension of powers, they have every right to put proposals before the House, but they are unwise to do so when we are dealing with the much narrower issue of the prevention of terrorism.
	The wider issue should be dealt with next year under the police reform Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond to that in the spirit of generosity for which he is renowned in the House and will understand the thought and logic behind our arguments.

Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, as we have a lot more to get through before 11 o'clock—not least clause 100.
	We owe my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) a debt of gratitude for tabling the amendment, which at least gives us the chance to debate a proposal which represents another Bill within the Bill and which is designed dramatically to increase the powers of the MOD police at a time when the police overall have been brought under much greater public scrutiny and consider their role much more as policing by consent and with the co-operation of local authorities.
	By and large, that has been extremely successful, but a new, largely unaccountable force is being brought into the equation in each locality and there is the possibility of all sorts of confusion about what local policing policies are and of confused communications between local police and the MOD police.
	There are often problems when special territorial police groups go into a locality, and I foresee greater problems here. I ask the Minister to reflect on what effect such increased powers and usage of the MOD police could have had in the miners' strike, when the Government were desperate to have a national police force at their beck and call to carry out their policies, particularly in the mining areas.
	Specifically, I ask the Minister to respond to the requests that have been made. What powers will MOD police have when they go into a community? What is the specific geographical limit of their powers, or is there no limit to them? What is the policy-making relationship with the local police authority, which may have priorities such as dealing with organised crime, street crime and violence, burglary or public order issues?
	Every police authority has a programme of what it is trying to achieve, and I find it extremely helpful that my local police area is prepared to discuss that and adopt a policy of policing by consent. That is not possible within the purview of the MOD police.
	Importantly, we have moved a long way on police complaints issues, the ability of the public to complain about the police and the way in which the police are investigated. We should go further and there should be no police investigation of the police. At the very least, one hopes that the Police Complaints Authority will be available for use in any complaint against the MOD police. If an investigation into the conduct of the MOD police were required, who would undertake it?
	The Joint Committee on Human Rights has examined this issue, and has urged caution. I do not suppose for one moment that the Minister will agree to the amendment, but instead of our debating now whether or not to include this part of the Bill, it might be better if it were the subject of consultation or a White Paper, with legislation to follow at a later date.
	We are in danger of giving enormous powers to a largely unaccountable police force under the direction of central Government. There will be no involvement of local policing by consent, which is the thrust of the Government's policy on policing in the community as a whole.

Norman Baker: I shall try to be brief, given the time and what we have to get through. Suffice it to say that these proposals predate 11 September by quite some time. They were brought before the House in the last Parliament, and were dropped because they were controversial. Presumably, they were also dropped because they were expendable when the negotiations took place about what legislation had to be dealt with before the general election.
	A number of serious questions have been asked about accountability, how this provision will work on the ground and what problems could occur. I hope that the Minister has been taking note of those detailed points and will respond to them, because there are problems. On this and other provisions in the Bill, we are asked once again to trust Ministers that everything will be all right on the night. We are asked to accept that powers will be extended widely, and that we can trust the police to exercise them judiciously. We hear nothing about the fact that we should be able to trust the Government not to introduce such wide and sweeping powers unnecessarily. There is no willingness on their part to curtail their activities when it is not necessary to extend powers as widely as proposed in these measures. That is missing.
	When Ministers comment on the provisions and explain why they are necessary, we hear nothing about safeguards, which also need to be included in the Bill, or the problems that may arise and what may go wrong. The concerns of hon. Members and of the Human Rights Committee are swept aside, and we are told that the powers are necessary. I would have more confidence in Ministers if they addressed the problems that hon. Members have identified and provided the necessary safeguards. I have heard nothing of that from Ministers so far, but perhaps the Under–Secretary of State for Defence will change that.

Alan Beith: I suspect that we will also not hear much about the fact that the training and career pattern of MOD police rarely gives them experience of or training in dealing with the civilian population. Some incidents have given the force a rather unhappy name. It must be remembered that its deputy chief constable was recently summarily dismissed.

Norman Baker: That was an important intervention.
	I also draw to the Minister's attention the comments of the Police Federation, which he may say has a vested interest, but which I think are rather important. It says:
	"MDP officers do not have relevant experience. The Federation does not consider that MDP have an appropriate approach to recruitment nor do their officers have the appropriate training to encourage appropriate interface with the public."
	It goes on at some length about why the proposals are dangerous.
	Finally, I draw to the Minister's attention the short debate in the other place on 13 November on the consultation paper that has just been issued about the British Transport police. It included some of the safeguards that its members wanted, such as civilian police authority training and Home Office standards, yet when it was suggested by some of my colleagues in the other place that those safeguards should apply to the MOD police, they were pooh-poohed by Ministers and almost ruled out of order. We must understand that a different approach was taken to the British Transport police in that consultation paper from the one that has been taken to the MOD police in these proposals.

Rachel Squire: I support the extension of the MOD police's jurisdiction, and am concerned about the amendments. I should declare two interests. First, I had the honour of being the Chairman of the Armed Forces Bill Committee, and I and other members of the Committee from all parties spent a considerable time discussing the extension of the MOD police's jurisdiction. Eventually, we produced a unanimous report, which supported the extension. When it was debated in this Chamber, there was also support for the extension.
	As for my other interest, I am regularly in contact with MOD police. That is because my constituency contains a dockyard which, in turn, contains seven decommissioned nuclear submarines and stores intermediate-level nuclear waste. Its armaments depot is just along the road. I therefore take a keen interest, as do many of my constituents—even keener since 11 September—in the proper regulation and safe keeping of premises in which MOD police play a key role.
	I realise that the general election prevented the Armed Forces Bill from completing its progress. I hope, however, that all Members feel that the Committee examined the issues extensively, and feel able to support our proposals tonight.

Chris Mullin: Clause 97 appears to constitute a considerable extension even of what was proposed in the Armed Forces Bill. My hon. Friend said that she had considered the powers in that Bill, which I think were supposed to apply only when violence was involved. Is she also saying that she is prepared to accept the extension of those powers to any offence?

Rachel Squire: As my hon. Friend says, this is an extension of the proposals in the Armed Forces Bill—and yes, I support that extension. I shall briefly explain why; first, however, let me deal with some of the concerns and reservations expressed by the Committee, and by other Members.
	The Committee strongly recommended a further revision of the excellent protocols applying to relations between civilian and MOD police. It suggested that there should be greater external accountability, that there should be more formal inspection by Her Majesty's inspectorate, and that scrupulous monitoring should take place. The Secretary of State and others supported all those proposals.
	Why should we support not just that extension of jurisdiction, but further powers? Well, why not? Let us deal with the reality of post-11 September. Because of the reduction in the defence estate and because they now have to be more mobile, MOD police must frequently travel far more between one point and another. Moreover, it is difficult to produce clear definitions of what might be seen as a terrorist incident in the making, what might be seen as an incident that could lead to violence, and what might be seen as merely a civilian incident.
	Let us suppose that someone was driving a car, in a reckless fashion, in the area of Rosyth dockyard. Like others, I think, I would consider MOD police in the area to be justified in deeming the incident potentially dangerous. That is the reality of post-11 September, when we are dealing with defence establishments.

Jeremy Corbyn: MOD police might well intervene if someone behaved in the manner that my hon. Friend describes outside a naval dockyard, but they could do that anyway under existing powers in legislation. Why is it necessary to extend their powers so massively and allow them to apply way beyond the immediate vicinity of an MOD facility?

Rachel Squire: One of the problems with current legislation on MOD police is that it does not necessarily provide for consideration of whether they have acted legally or appropriately by intervening in such incidents. If MOD police seek to intervene and arrest someone just off the defence estate, that arrest could easily be regarded as a civilian arrest. If the offence involved joyriding, for example, a court might rule that they had acted inappropriately. As I said, there are many blurred, grey areas to the issue.
	I was disappointed by some of the comments about MOD police going round armed on and off the defence estate. Anyone who read the Armed Forces Bill Committee's report will know that MOD police do not leave the defence estate when armed. If they are carrying guns or ammunition, that material is carried not only entirely separately but with the prior agreement and knowledge of the local chief constable or relevant officer. The civilian chief constable or his delegated officer deals with all instances in which MOD police carry firearms off MOD property.

Alan Beith: The hon. Lady's description is almost but not quite accurate. There is often excellent liaison between MOD police and the local police force. Consequently, MOD armed police leaving the base and going into the wider force area—usually not very far, which is why the proposed provision could be more limited—are accompanied by civilian armed police, so there is at least one police officer from each force. From a civil liberties perspective, that arrangement seems much more reasonable than that proposed in the Bill, which would allow MOD police to travel armed across a force area.

Rachel Squire: My clear understanding is that neither this Bill nor the Armed Forces Bill would allow the latter situation. The regulations governing the carrying of firearms are very strict, and the civilian police authority has the ultimate power in all such cases.
	Some hon. Members mentioned training. Many MOD police are former civilian police officers. They are highly trained and experienced. Furthermore, secondment is an increasingly common practice. An extension of their jurisdiction is long overdue, and to delay extending it any longer after 11 September would be to fail to face the reality in many of the more sensitive and vulnerable parts of the defence estate. In view of the Committee's scrutiny of the issue, and the House's debate and vote on it, I hope that hon. Members believe that it is now appropriate to extend the jurisdiction of MOD police.

Gerald Howarth: The Select Committee on Defence—of which the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Rachel Squire) is a distinguished member—is carrying out a very short inquiry into the powers that the Government propose to confer on the Ministry of Defence police under the Bill. We expect to be able to conclude our deliberations in time for consideration of the Bill in another place. The timetable in this House is so short that we do not have the necessary time properly to consider the complexities arising from the Bill, of which problem this matter is just another example.
	The Bill extends the powers of the MOD police well beyond dealing solely with terrorism, to which my hon. Friends on the Front Bench wish to confine it. They are right that a police Bill would have been a more appropriate measure in which to deal with the wider issues of the MOD police, even if the Government could make a case for them to deal with terrorism specifically. The amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin) would enable the Government to confine the application of the extended powers simply to dealing with the issue with which we are all concerned: terrorism.
	Having said that, I have some sympathy with the general desire expressed in the Bill to extend the powers of the MOD police. I represent a garrison town, but I have to say that I have had no dealings with the MOD police. I have had no complaints either from soldiers or from members of the public. The MOD police seem to operate a pretty seamless arrangement with the local constabulary. I met the chief inspector this morning, so at least I can claim to have had some discussion and that I can bring some relevant experience to the Committee.
	There is no doubt that there are grey areas that inhibit the MOD police in the execution of their duty. One is the change in married quarters, some of which have now been sold off so that we now have military estates alongside civilian estates. It is difficult for an MOD police officer to make sure that he is knocking at No. 53, which is his responsibility, and not No. 51, which is the responsibility of the local constabulary. There is also a grey area in the definition of "vicinity". If we are serious about dealing with terrorism, we must give powers to our police forces, whether they are the local constabulary or the MOD.
	We do not want MOD police officers to go on fishing expeditions, which the Association of Chief Police Officers is dead against. I understand also that the assistant chief constable of the MOD police—who has 30 years' experience of the Metropolitan police—does not want his force to go off on fishing expeditions into the towns, doing the job of the local constabulary.
	I do not want the MOD police to be used as a supplement to deal with shortages in the local constabulary because the Home Office has not been able to give the necessary funding to local police forces. In my area, we are short of police officers. I do not want the chief constable of Hampshire to call on the MOD police to make up the numbers because he is short of recruits.
	There is an established arrangement of protocols that governs the relationship between the MOD police and the local constabulary. It is unfortunate that we do not have revised protocols to scrutinise before approving the Bill tonight. The protocols provide an element of accountability, albeit not the same accountability as would apply to a local constabulary.
	Proposed new subsection (3C) in clause 97(4) proposes to give the MOD police the same powers and privileges as constables. My hon. Friend the Member for West Dorset wants that provision to be restricted to offences suspected to involve terrorism. However, subsection (3D) provides that the powers in subsection (3C) can be conferred only if the men are in uniform or have documentary evidence. In addition, they must
	"believe on reasonable grounds that a power of a constable which they would not have apart from that subsection ought to be exercised and that, if it cannot be exercised until they secure the attendance of or a request under subsection (3A) above by a constable who has it, the purpose for which they believe it ought to be exercised will be frustrated or seriously prejudiced."
	In other words, MOD police can exercise the powers of a constable only if they believe that waiting for the local constabulary to arrive or getting permission from the local constabulary would allow a crime to be undetected. We should consider that in extending the powers of the Ministry of Defence police. I accept that it is quite a dramatic increase in those powers. I am sorry that their extension has been included in the Bill because I believe that we should have followed the advice of my hon. Friend and confined it to dealing with terrorism.

Paul Marsden: I am afraid that the 11 September atrocities have simply become an excuse for each Department to sweep up every little piece of nasty legislation into this Bill—something that they have been eager to do for years.
	The Bill is an excuse to extend the control of the state apparatus and it contains a dangerous extension of police powers. I am sure that many injustices will follow and no doubt Ministers will reflect upon them in due course. Needless to say, I oppose this measure.
	My understanding was that if the regular police decide to stop someone when they are driving in their car, they have to be in uniform. Subsection (3D) of clause 97(4) states:
	"members of Ministry of Defence Police have powers and privileges by virtue of subsection (3C) above only if—
	(a) they are in uniform or have with them documentary evidence that they are members of the Ministry of Defence Police".
	If they are not in uniform but in plain clothes, are they allowed to stop people at will as long as they have the documentary evidence and identification, regardless of the fact that the poor old public may not know that they are Ministry of Defence police officers?

Lewis Moonie: I regret to inform Conservative Members that I may have brought my good nature with me this evening, but not my generosity of spirit.
	It would appear that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin) and I agree on the principle of amendment No. 57 and are merely arguing about the degree to which the powers of the clause apply. That is what he said, if he looks at Hansard.
	I shall be asking the Committee to reject the amendment. Let us be clear what we are talking about. Under our proposals, this power can be exercised only when the officer concerned needs to act and cannot obtain in time the attendance of, or a request from, another police officer. Given the availability of modern radio communications, the effect will restrict its use to circumstances of genuine emergency when a virtually instant reaction is needed.
	Standing instructions within the Ministry of Defence police will amplify the limitation to genuine emergencies. It does not give officers authority to go around checking tax discs or carrying out any other routine tasks on behalf of a local constabulary.

James Paice: Will the Minister give the House an example of such a crime, other than out-of-date tax discs? The majority of crimes, from the least to the most serious, take place within a short space of time. Can the Minister give any examples of crimes in which timeliness is not of the essence and Ministry of Defence police would be inclined to assume the powers of a constable because there would not be time to call the local police?

Lewis Moonie: I suspect that if an officer was called to a domestic dispute, he would have time to inform the local constabulary. That is one example, although I do not intend to give any more. Perhaps hon. Members will think of other examples while I am on my feet, and relieve me of the mental burden of having to do so.

James Paice: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lewis Moonie: No, I am sorry, I have no time.
	As to what the provision allows, I ask the Committee to consider two scenarios. Intelligence is received that a possible terrorist is near a defence base—perhaps a US base. The suspect is believed to be a member of an illegal organisation, or to have with him a stolen passport or a weapon. There may be no immediate threat of violence; the suspect is only scouting—carrying out reconnaissance. Under the Terrorism Act 2000, the MDP have the power to arrest members of illegal organisations. They have powers of arrest and stop and search related to stolen articles, but at present they could act only if two requirements are met: the suspect is "in the vicinity" of the base on which the police are operating, and the local force agrees. The new powers in the Bill will allow the MDP to act if there is no time to bring in the local police—in other words, if there is an emergency.

Oliver Letwin: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lewis Moonie: No.
	The power is not limited to terrorism, and that is deliberate. To take a second case—an MDP officer in a street adjacent to defence property is approached by a woman who says, "Stop that man, he has taken my purse". That could happen up the road at the Ministry of Defence—our own officers patrol outside. The officer sees a man running away. Should he say, "Sorry, can't help. Although I may look like a police officer, I am in the MDP and I have no jurisdiction"? Should the officer try to establish whether the man had or had not used violence in taking the purse—by which time the man will have made off? Should the officer try to contact the local police station to seek instruction? The result would be the same. The Committee will agree that the public would expect him to do none of those, but to take action at once to apprehend the suspect.

David Heath: What about a citizen's arrest?

Lewis Moonie: Phrases such as "citizen's arrest" are, I am afraid, used by people who are ignorant of what police officers have to do in the course of their duty and who have absolutely no idea of what is involved—something that is very common in the Liberal party, as hon. Members may have noticed from the quality of their contributions to the debate.

Dominic Grieve: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Lewis Moonie: No.
	For the reasons I have outlined, on further consideration and taking into account recent events, we felt that the limitation to an offence of violence would be unduly restrictive and, moreover, difficult to apply. Any attempt to discriminate between different classes of offence would be subject to the same drawbacks. The Committee will, however, want to note what I said about the limitation being to genuine emergencies.
	The Committee may also like to note that we have not decided to pursue the proposal in the Armed Forces Act 2001 to enable the chief constable of the MDP to enter into standing agreements with local police to exercise police powers in areas in the vicinity of defence land. That gave rise to many expressions of concern during debate on that measure, so our decision shows that we do listen to concerns expressed in the House and in another place.
	I regret that I shall ask the Committee to reject amendments Nos. 165 and 166. Their effect, taken together, would be drastically to limit the circumstances in which the power to act in emergency could be used. The Bill already limits that power to circumstances where an offence has been, is being or is about to be committed, or where there is danger to life or of personal injury, and action is needed on a time scale that does not allow another police officer to be summoned or contacted. Those are severe constraints.
	The amendment would additionally prevent action except where a terrorist offence was involved and there was danger to life or of personal injury. That means that an MDP officer whose assistance in an emergency was sought by a member of the public outside defence property would still be unable to act as a police officer except where terrorism was involved. Even where terrorism was involved, he would be unable to act unless there was an immediate danger to life or of personal injury. Both in terrorist and non-terrorist emergencies, he would be unable to act as the public could reasonably expect that a police officer should.
	I will give one example from the many that I could cite. In relation to amendment No. 57, I have already referred to a situation in which intelligence is received that a possible terrorist is near a defence base, or an MDP vehicle comes across such a suspect. The suspect is believed to be a member of an illegal organisation, or to have with him stolen identification or a weapon. There may be no immediate threat of violence—the subject is only carrying out reconnaissance. Under the Terrorism Act, the MDP have power to arrest members of illegal organisations, but at present they cannot act off defence land without a local police request. They have powers of arrest and of stop and search in relation to stolen articles, but again, a local police request is needed, yet immediate action may be essential to prevent an act of terrorism from occurring in future. The new powers in the Bill will allow the MDP to act if there is no time to involve the local police.
	On non-terrorist issues, if an MDP officer were to see a vehicle being driven erratically and in a manner dangerous to other road users, he would be unable to apprehend the driver without first contacting another police officer, explaining the circumstances and receiving instructions. Frankly, that is not acceptable.
	The Opposition have made several claims in relation to the clause. I shall first cover the old chestnut that these measures were dropped in the previous Parliament because of the quality of the arguments of those opposing them. I regret that that was not the case. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, the measures were dropped because we ran out of time, faced with the general election. Of course, as anyone who knows anything about the House will know, we had to introduce measures in the Armed Forces Act 2001 expeditiously.
	Many organisations have been consulted and support the extension of the MDP's jurisdiction. The Association of Chief Police Officers and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) have been made aware of the extensions of the MDP's jurisdiction and support it. The chairman of the ACPO general policing committee, the chief constable of Staffordshire, also supports it. Her Majesty's inspector of constabulary supports it. The Home Office consultation document, which was circulated with the proposals, including these provisions, has been supported by the Police Federation of England and Wales, by the Metropolitan police and by the service police.
	There has been some comment about the experience of our officers. Perhaps it would be of value to the House if I spent a little time describing what their experience involves. All our officers are trained in the use of firearms because that is an essential part of their activities. Only those who are competent to bear firearms pass out as MOD police officers. That is only right and proper, given the number of times that they have to bear them. Armed MOD policing has primarily occurred at the four main nuclear sites, plus Porton Down.
	Counter-terrorist armed security policing is clearly a core activity. Since the IRA bombing at Deal, for example, the MDP have been deployed operationally in an armed role throughout MOD sites, given that, of course, we now consider the MOD a prime target for terrorism. I shall pass over many other matters, but areas of specialist training include chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear weapons.
	In particular, let us consider the MDP's experience of dealing with members of the public. Anyone would think that members of the MOD police only ever deal with people in uniform. That is simply not the case; they police housing estates in which, I assure the Committee, any crime that takes place in other parts of the country may be exhibited. They undergo the same basic training as any other constable. Their primary role is, in fact, to deal with civilians, dependants, contractors, trades people and visitors to our sites.
	The MDP police service football and rugby matches. They police public events, garrison areas, such as Colchester, Salisbury Plain, Aldershot and Catterick, and public roads open to and widely used by the general public. They run community initiatives in defence areas.
	The MDP have been sent to Kosovo, after three weeks of special training. I have spoken to the men and women involved and, on one occasion, a constable from the MDP has been left to run a precinct in Kosovo and has coped admirably, as have all the officers sent there. They are not amateurs; they are highly trained civilian police officers. They are not a military police force. However, I submit that they are as well trained as anyone in any other police force.
	I agree that greater accountability should go with wider powers. The question is how we should provide that. We have already done some things and I promise that we shall do others in future.
	On the MOD police committee, we have already added three additional independent members to the committee and are now actively considering whether more needs to be done. There is, of course, a statutory requirement to have a police committee under the Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987. The role of the committee has changed since 1987. There is now more direct involvement with the MOD community and sections of it. There are now more external contractors, an increased civilian employed population, more mixed ownership within married quarters estates and more dependants and families in areas policed by the MDP. Therefore it is important that the membership of the committee should reflect those changes.
	I undertake to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South that everything that can be done to improve the accountability of the MDP police force will be done. Its current membership includes major stakeholders, service chiefs and defence logistics organisations.

Chris Mullin: Do the plans including making the force accountable to the Police Complaints Authority?

Lewis Moonie: Let me just finish what I was going to say and see whether it covers my hon. Friend's point.
	There is also a proposal that the meeting of the MDP police committee should be held in public. The chief constable has indicated that he would welcome that proposal in the light of his experience in the West Yorkshire police.
	The force is currently inspected by Her Majesty's inspectorate of constabulary. Currently, inspections are by invitation and a pre-inspection visit to the force by the inspectorate prevented the chief constable's attendance at the Select Committee on Defence last week. An amendment providing for compulsory inspections was tabled to the Armed Forces Act 2001, but it fell with the other provisions for the MDP. It is proposed to include equivalent provisions in the planned police reform Bill, which should be published shortly.
	On the Police Complaints Authority, at present overview and supervision of all complaints and discipline in the MDP is by statutory agreement. Therefore, the authority is involved and I was waiting until I came to that point in the brief before I referred to it. Disciplinary arrangements already mirror, as far as possible, those of other police forces. At the moment, they are non-statutory and differences arise from the fact that the MDP is part of a Department and certain powers, such as those of dismissal, belong to the Secretary of State.
	The Armed Forces Bill—now the 2001 Act—originally included provisions to put discipline on to a statutory footing and to allow important decisions on discipline, including appeals on discipline decisions, to be taken on just the same basis as for Home Department forces. Disciplinary decisions and appeals would have been decided by a tribunal whose composition was statutory. Those provisions fell with the other MDP provisions in the Bill and it is our intention to include equivalent provisions in the police reform Bill.
	As regards operational responsibility, the MDP is part of the Ministry of Defence. The Secretary of State is politically accountable to Parliament for the force. The Ministry of Defence Police Act 1987, however, specifically gives direction and control of the force to the chief constable. This independence is essential and shall of course remain.
	I realise that I have been caught between a rock and a hard place. If I had spoken for three minutes and told everyone to get lost, I would rightly have been criticised for not responding to an interesting debate. I have tried to take more time to explain the reasons behind the provisions and the way in which we hope to couch the powers for the police. I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South will feel able to withdraw the amendment.

Oliver Letwin: I had not intended to speak because my hon. Friend the Member for South–East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice) has already spoken. However, the Minister has refused to take interventions from Conservative Members, so I will speak.
	The Minister's speech was a travesty and an insult to the Committee. We raised a serious point about whether the clause should be limited to terrorist offences, but the Minister did not even begin to address that question. Instead, he implied that we had made all sorts of assertions about the MOD police that we did not make and would never make. We fully recognise their professionalism. The question is whether this measure in this form should be in this Bill. As the Minister is obviously reading a brief that was intended for another time when the amendment was not on offer, I hope that the Committee will look favourably on the amendment because he has no argument against it to make.

Chris Mullin: I am grateful for the Minister's assurance that the powers will be used only in a genuine emergency and when the time scale does not allow for help to be obtained from the regular police. I am also grateful for his assurances on accountability, to which I hope the House will hold him. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
	Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
	Amendment proposed: No. 166, in page 59, line 18, after "offence", insert—
	'which he might reasonably assume to be terrorism'.—[Mr. Paice.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 206, Noes 338.

Question accordingly negatived.
	It being after Eleven o'clock, The Chairman, pursuant to Orders [19 and 21 November], put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.
	Clauses 97 to 100 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 7
	 — 
	Transport Police and MOD Police: Further Provisions

Amendments made: No. 76, in page 108, line 21, at end insert—
	Police (Scotland) Act 1967 (c. 77)
	1 The Police (Scotland) Act 1967 has effect subject to the following amendments.
	2 (1) Section 11 (aid of one police force by another) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (2), for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate Minister or Ministers" and after "he" insert "or they".
	(3) In subsection (4), for "Secretary of State" substitute "appropriate Ministers".
	(4) After that subsection insert—
	"(5) This section shall apply in relation to the Strategic Rail Authority and the British Transport Police Force as it applies to a police authority and a police force respectively.
	(6) In subsection (2) "appropriate Minister or Ministers" means—
	(a) in relation to a direction given to the Chief Constable of the British Transport Police Force, the Secretary of State, and
	(b) in any other case, the Scottish Ministers.
	(7) In subsection (4) "appropriate Ministers" means—
	(a) where the police authorities concerned include the Strategic Rail Authority, the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, acting jointly, and
	(b) in any other case, the Scottish Ministers."
	3 (1) Section 12 (collaboration agreements) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (3), for "Secretary of State" substitute "Scottish Ministers".
	(3) For subsection (5) substitute—
	"(5) If it appears to the Scottish Ministers that an agreement should be made for the purposes specified in subsection (1), (2) or (4) of this section, they may, after considering any representations made by the parties concerned, direct those parties to enter into such agreement for that purpose as may be specified in the directions.
	(6) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) the British Transport Police Force shall be treated as if it were a police force;
	(b) "police functions" shall include the functions of the British Transport Police Force;
	(c) the British Transport Police Committee shall be treated as if it were the police authority maintaining that Force for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2) of this section; and the Strategic Rail Authority shall be so treated for the purposes of subsection (3) of this section; and
	(d) "police area", in relation to the British Transport Police Force and the British Transport Police Committee, means those places where members of the British Transport Police Force have the powers, protection and privileges of a constable under section 53(4) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix).
	(7) In relation to agreements relating to the British Transport Police Force, any determination under subsection (3) shall be made, and any directions under subsection (5) shall be given, by the Scottish Ministers and the Secretary of State, acting jointly."
	4 (1) Section 17 (general functions and jurisdiction of constables) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (4) insert—
	"(4A) A member of the British Transport Police Force who is for the time being required by virtue of section 11 or 12 of this Act to serve with a police force shall—
	(a) have all the powers and privileges of a constable of that police force, and
	(b) be subject to the direction of the chief constable of that force."
	(3) In subsection (7)(a) after "first–mentioned force" insert "or, if he is serving with the British Transport Police Force, the Chief Constable of that Force".
	5 (1) Section 42 (causing disaffection) is amended as follows.
	(2) In subsection (1), after "force" insert "or of the British Transport Police Force".
	(3) In subsection (2), after "constable" insert "or a member of the British Transport Police Force".
	6 (1) Section 43 (impersonation etc.) is amended as follows.
	(2) After subsection (2) insert—
	"(2A) For the purposes of this section—
	(a) "constable" includes a member of the British Transport Police Force, and
	(b) any reference to "police" includes a reference to that force."
	(3) In subsection (3), after "police authority" insert "or by the British Transport Police Committee".
	(4) After that subsection insert—
	"(4) In its application to articles of British Transport Police Force uniform, subsection (1)(b) has effect as if for the words "without the permission of the police authority for the police area in which he is" were substituted the words "in circumstances where it gives him an appearance so nearly resembling that of a constable as to be calculated to deceive".
	7 In section 51 (interpretation), after the definition of "amalgamation scheme" insert—
	""British Transport Police Force" means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix);".'.
	No. 77, in page 109, line 38, leave out from "(11)" to end of line 42 and insert—
	'(a) before the definition of "dangerous instruments" insert—
	""British Transport Police Force" means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix)", and
	(b) after the definition of "offensive weapon" insert—
	""policed premises", in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) and, in relation to Scotland, means those places where members of the British Transport Police Force have the powers, protection and privileges of a constable under section 53(4)(a) of that Act (as it relates to Scotland).".'.
	No. 78, in page 111, line 14, at end insert—
	'20A In section 105(2) (extent), after the entry relating to section 21 insert "section 25(1A)".'.
	No. 79, in page 111, line 24, leave out from "premises" to "by" in line 25.
	No. 80, in page 111, line 40, leave out from "premises" to end of line 42.
	No. 81, in page 112, line 4, leave out from "premises" to ", an" in line 6.
	No. 82, in page 112, line 17, leave out from "121" to end of line 19 and insert—
	'(a) after the definition of "article" insert—
	""British Transport Police Force" means the constables appointed under section 53 of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix)," and
	(b) after the definition of "organisation" insert—
	""policed premises", in relation to England and Wales, has the meaning given by section 53(3) of the British Transport Commission Act 1949 (c. xxix) and, in relation to Scotland, means those places where members of the British Transport Police Force have the powers, protection and privileges of a constable under section 53(4)(a) of that Act (as it relates to Scotland).".'.
	No. 128, in page 112, line 22, at end add
	'and
	(b) after the entry relating to the expression "organisation" insert—
	"Policed premisesSection 121".'. —[Dr. Moonie.]
	Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
	Motion made, and Question put, That clauses 101 to 105, 120 and 121 stand part of the Bill, that schedule 8 be the Eighth schedule to the Bill, and that clause 122 stand part of the Bill:—
	The Committee divided: Ayes 340, Noes 65.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Clauses 101 to 105, 120 and 121 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
	Schedule 8 agreed to.
	Clause 122 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 124
	 — 
	Extent

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 73, line 26, at end insert—
	'(c) in Part 6 of Schedule 8, the repeals in the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 (c.33) and in the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 (c.37).'.—[Mr. Pearson.]
	Clause 124, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill
	Clause 125 ordered to stand part of the Bill

New Clause 9
	 — 
	Review of sections 21 to 23

'.—(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint a person to review the operation of sections 21 to 23.
	(2) The person appointed under subsection (1) shall review the operation of those sections not later than—
	(a) the expiry of the period of 14 months beginning with the day on which this Act is passed;
	(b) one month before the expiry of a period specified in accordance with section 28(2)(b) or (c).
	(3) Where that person conducts a review under subsection (2) he shall send a report to the Secretary of State as soon as is reasonably practicable.
	(4) Where the Secretary of State receives a report under subsection (3) he shall lay a copy of it before Parliament as soon as is reasonably practicable.
	(5) The Secretary of State may make payments to a person appointed under subsection (1).'—[Mr. Pearson.]
	Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.
	Bill, as amended, to be reported.
	Bill, as amended in the Committee, considered.

Madam Deputy Speaker: The amendment paper for Report is now available.

Alan Beith: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments was prepared and published at 9.30 pm. After that, several provisions, including schedule 7, were not discussed. Will you and Mr. Speaker have the opportunity to reconsider your selection, given that you made the decision before you knew that several provisions would not be debated? Without a chance to debate schedule 7, hon. Members will never be told why employees of the Strategic Rail Authority should be given the power to purchase firearms. We should have that opportunity.

Madam Deputy Speaker: I would like to assure the right hon. Gentleman that the Speaker was in full knowledge of all the facts when he took this decision.

Clause 17
	 — 
	Extension of existing disclosure powers

Dominic Grieve: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 7, line 10, leave out "criminal" and insert "terrorism".
	Amendment No. 1 is the same as amendment No. 85, which we wanted to discuss in Committee last week but which we did not reach. The provisions of clause 17 represent some of the most major transfers of power by the state in terms of—[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members who do not wish to hear the remainder of the debate should leave the Chamber quietly and quickly.

Dominic Grieve: Clause 17 provides for the extension of existing disclosure powers to enable the exchange of information between Government agencies and Departments in a way that is unparalleled in our history. There is no restriction or fetter on the exchange of information, which is contained in schedule 7, and the provision can be applied in any criminal investigation from a speeding offence to high treason. Schedule 4, annexed to it, shows that the information cuts right across Government. Much of that information concerns matters that are, at present, surrounded by specific confidentiality clauses relating to the information imparted to the particular Government agency or Department.
	Thus it will now be possible for the Inland Revenue to share information with any other Government agency. Medical information, including the records of individuals, will be capable of being shared. The Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974, with which I am particularly familiar, contains a specific clause which provides that statements may be obtained from individuals—indeed, they are compelled to provide them. That information, too, may now be shared, even though the 1974 Act specifically provided that it could be made available only for legal proceedings relating to the Act or in circumstances in which the individual consented.
	Conservative Members wish to assist the Government in the fight against terrorism. [Interruption.] If the Home Secretary would like to stop yawning, perhaps I can proceed with the points that I wish to make. Given the short amount of time that we have, the more he yawns, the longer this will take. We wish to help the Government to fight terrorism. That is why we have tabled this short amendment, which would confine this exchange of information to terrorism and terrorist offences.
	The manner in which this measure has been introduced gives rise to considerable concern. Last year, the Government attempted to do exactly this in the Criminal Justice and Police Bill, in which a very similar provision was introduced. It was hotly disputed, and by the time the Bill reached the House of Lords, the level of resistance was so great that, to save the legislation before the election, the Government agreed to drop the provision.
	The other place was right to be concerned about this issue, because it concerns such a fundamental shift in the way we conduct our affairs. Historically, we have been self-regulating and that has implied a willingness by the individual to supply information to Government agencies and Departments in the belief that confidentiality would be maintained. Only in exceptional circumstances has interdepartmental confidentiality been broken or agreement been reached for the sharing of information.
	Labour Members who may consider this a small matter should bear it in mind that the entire panoply of information sharing will be unfurled as a result of the changes and that we have been given precisely 25 minutes in which to consider them. They will not be considered in major legislation at all.

Nicholas Soames: Has sufficient time been given to considering clause 47(1)(a), which refers to a
	"person who—
	knowingly causes a nuclear weapon explosion"
	being guilty of an offence?

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I must remind the hon. Gentleman that that particular provision is not under discussion.

Dominic Grieve: Tempted as I am, I shall follow your recommendation, Madam Deputy Speaker, and refrain from developing what would be an interesting line of debate.
	The Bill and clause 17 go further than the Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001. It was at least provided in the 2001 Act that any information exchanged would be subject to the Data Protection Act 1998, but that provision will be removed under the Bill. We have had no explanation from the Government as to why that should be.
	We urge the House carefully to consider the amendment. We believe that it would in no way prevent the Government from fighting terrorism, but it would prevent us from agreeing to a massive change in a brief debate on emergency legislation when the Government know that their previous attempt caused considerable concern. I commend the amendment to the House.

Simon Hughes: In the time available, it has not been possible to debate retention of data and only through the speedy footwork of the hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve), his colleagues and my colleagues have we been able to bring the matter before the House for a few minutes. We are aware, too, that if we are to resolve the issue, we must finish the debate in a matter of moments so as to allow any discussion on Third Reading. Therefore, I support what the hon. Gentleman said to remind the House of what it will agree to if it does not accept the Conservative and Liberal Democrat amendment, which I believe will be supported by others.
	It is proposed that the powers of disclosure be extended in relation to any public authority so that the authorised purposes will include
	"any criminal investigation whatever which is being carried out or may be carried out, whether in the United Kingdom or elsewhere".
	If that is not a wide provision, we do not know what is. The Government make it clear in schedule 4 that it already applies to 66 pieces of legislation—66 existing powers—and the clause proposes that they should by statutory instrument be able to extend it to any other legislation as well.
	As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, that is why it is no surprise that this place and the House of Lords, which had inadequate time to debate the proposal when it appeared in a straightforward criminal justice and police Bill, not a terrorism Bill or an emergency Bill, said that holding such a debate was inappropriate. Lord Cope and Lord McNally made it clear that the Bill needed to be properly considered and controlled in order for us properly to do our job as legislators.
	The Cabinet Office performance and innovation unit, which is the source of the proposal, recommended that there ought to be a wider power to disclose information for the purpose of criminal investigation. To take one example, the Revenue keeps records on 32 million people, and that information could be transferred as a result of the proposal. We are not told to whom that information could be passed, at whose request, the seniority of the person making the request, to what use it would be put and for what purposes it would thereafter be used.
	Even if we were happy that this power should exist, and that it is a proper power for a police Bill, a criminal evidence Bill or a criminal justice Bill, Parliament was not willing to rush this provision through last year in such legislation. I hope that the House will agree that it is entirely inappropriate to rush it through under a guillotine in an emergency anti-terrorism Bill only a few months later.
	When the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) spoke on Second Reading of the Criminal Justice and Police Bill a year ago, she said that this provision should be used only in connection with serious investigations. Liberal Democrats said that it should at least require judicial authorisation. As the hon. Member for Beaconsfield said, there is not even a limit on powers such as those which allow the Data Protection Registrar to hold information. From now on, that can be passed on.
	This legislation should at least require a reasonable suspicion of serious terrorism-related crime for the House sensibly to agree to the proposals. There is no prior authorisation, no subsequent checking or auditing, and no guarantee that the person to whom the information relates is ever told what is going on. I hope that, even at this late stage, the House will realise that the amendment would hugely protect the citizen and that, unamended, the clause is not justified by the original purpose of the Bill. I hope that the amendment will be agreed.

Ruth Kelly: The hon. Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Grieve) fundamentally misunderstands the nature of these clauses. Clause 17 is designed to clarify for public officials in what circumstances they may disclose information. I think that many Members will recognise the need for that clarification. If the clause were restricted to terrorist offences, it would be a significant impediment because the public official in each case would have to satisfy himself in advance of any disclosure whether the information was directly related to a terrorism investigation. That does nothing to harmonise requirements or to make it simple for public officials to understand what they are supposed to disclose.

Dominic Grieve: We do not want to make it simple. I am sure that the Minister will agree that each of the sections of each of the Acts listed in schedule 4 contain specific protections. She can read them. I quoted section 28(7) of the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974. Protection exists, but she intends to get rid of it. That is hardly a clarification.

Ruth Kelly: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, but it again shows that he fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the clause.
	The hon. Gentleman disputes the fact that the clause contains safeguards. I guarantee that it provides strong safeguards for the disclosure of information. I emphasise that all the gateways in clause 17 are pre-existing: they have already been approved by the House, and nothing new is being debated today. They refer to specific information covered by existing statutory restrictions on disclosure. Safeguards are provided by the Human Rights Act 1998 and by the Data Protection Act 1984, and they still apply, so any information that is disclosed must be proportionate, necessary and lawful.

Dominic Grieve: If the Data Protection Act is supposed to apply to clause 17, why is it cited specifically in respect of clause 19 but not in respect of clause 17?

Ruth Kelly: Such provisions could have been included, but it was decided that that would confuse certain other issues—[Interruption]. Not in relation to this clause, but in relation to other measures. I can tell the hon. Gentleman, however—I see that the hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin), who is sitting beside him, agrees—that the Data Protection and the Human Rights Acts apply to clause 17. If he disputes that, we can perhaps continue to debate it, but it is the case. What we are talking about is widening gateways to include criminal investigations and proceedings, and harmonising various Acts.

Edward Garnier: The Minister says that the Human Rights Act applies to the provisions she has just described. Following very limited debate, the Government disapplied the European convention on human rights only the other day. What guarantee have we that they will not do the same again?

Ruth Kelly: That is completely separate. It has nothing to do with clause 17. The fact is that the existing safeguards in regard to the existing gateways—the Data Protection and the Human Rights Acts—apply. They are strong provisions, and we are merely widening them to include the disclosure of information for the purposes of criminal investigations and proceedings.

Lembit �pik: Is there not a strategic issue here? The question of disclosure underlies what we feel is the erosion of civil liberties and privacy. At what point will the Government accept that preserving civil liberties is more important than their hunger to legislate in this way?

Ruth Kelly: The safeguards in the clause are very strong, and I believe that they protect existing civil liberties. Information that is disclosed is disclosed voluntarily, and disclosure must be necessary, proportionate and lawful.
	I consider that restricting the wording to terrorism would limit and severely weaken the Bill. Those who accept the need to widen the gateways to include investigations as well as proceedings will see that it is difficult for public officials to know whether specific acts are related to terrorism. Serious crimes such as drug dealing and money laundering, for instance, are often intimately linked with crimes of terrorism. Restricting the wording in this way would severely inhibit our ability to pursue anti-terrorism measures and to conquer terrorism.

Oliver Letwin: I have two questions. First, if there is a contradiction between clause 17 and the Data Protection Act, would the clausegiven that it would be passed after the Actsupervene? Secondly, how could restricting the wording to terrorism cause difficulty in the pursuit of an investigation relating to terrorism?

Ruth Kelly: I do not believe there is any contradiction between the Data Protection Act and clause 17. It is clear that both the Data Protection Act and the Human Rights Act apply in this case.
	I forget the hon. Gentleman's second question. Will he remind me? [Laughter.]

Oliver Letwin: No, that is perfectly fair. I am sorry for having asked two questions in one.

Angela Eagle: The hon. Gentleman should not be patronising.

Oliver Letwin: I am not trying to be patronising; I am trying to be fair. How could restricting the clause to cases of terrorism restrict an investigation of terrorist activities?

Ruth Kelly: We are widening existing gateways to include disclosure of information relating to instances of pursued investigations, and helping authorities to decide whether to instigate such investigations. It is not at all clear that, if the provision were linked directly to terrorism, it would be easy for a public official to determine whether a serious crime such as money laundering or drug trafficking would turn out to be related to terrorism. We aim in clause 17 to make it as easy as possible for the authorities to tackle terrorism effectively.

Oliver Letwin: Surely the Minister recognises that the Opposition are simply trying to restrict the provision to cases in which there is a reasonable suspicion of terrorism and therefore an investigation into terrorism. She has not yet addressed the issue of how such a restriction could possibly restrict an investigation into terrorism.

Ruth Kelly: As I said, it is quite clear that many serious crimes are intimately linked to terrorism. It is potentially even more difficult for public officials to determine whether certain acts of a criminal nature that are committed abroad are linked to terrorism. [Interruption.] I feel that I have dealt fully with the hon. Gentleman's interventions.

Paul Marsden: I mistakenly thought that the Bill dealt with terrorism, not crime. I cannot for the life of me understand why we are not narrowing the legislation to take targeted action on terrorists, which everyone tells us is necessary, except that the Government wish to bulldoze civil liberties at a great rate of knots in the little time remaining for consideration of the Bill. We should not simply throw the net as wide as possible to catch everyone including criminals within it. That is what is being proposed. Consequently, in the years to come we shall undoubtedly face umpteen injustices[Interruption.] The legislation is badly thought out, and the Minister has the lamentable task of implementing it[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members are expected to be heard when they are making a contribution.

Ruth Kelly: There is nothing new in the Bill other than the widening of existing[Hon. Members: Gateways.]gateways for the disclosure of information[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The House must come to order. The Minister is responding to an intervention.

Ruth Kelly: The clause widens provision for the disclosure of information to include criminal investigations as well as proceedings.

Kevin McNamara: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Ruth Kelly: No; I have already taken a significant number of interventions.
	We see clause 17 as fundamental to the fight against terrorism. It is essential that we use all the means at our disposal to crack down on terrorism. It is absolutely right that information should be disclosed to us by public authorities in that manner.

Simon Hughes: I simply ask that the Question be put.

Question put, That the amendment be made:
	The House divided: Ayes 213, Noes 330.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 28
	  
	Duration of Sections 21 to 23

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 15, line 31, at end insert
	( ) Sections 21 to 23 shall by virtue of this subsection cease to have effect at the end of 10th November 2006[Mr. Blunkett]

Schedule 1
	  
	Forfeiture of Terrorist Cash

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 78, line 6, leave out under this section.[Mr. Blunkett.]

Edward Garnier: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that you and your fellow occupiers of the Chair will have kept a careful note during the two days of discussion on the Bill, so can you tell me what proportion of the Bill has been debated and what proportion[Interruption.]

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I am taking a point of order.

Edward Garnier: What proportion of the amendments selected by the Chairman of Ways and Means was debated during the course of the Bill's passage through the House?

Madam Deputy Speaker: The business on the Bill has been conducted as per the programme motion agreed by the House.
	Order for Third Reading read.

David Blunkett: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
	I thank Members on both sides of the House who have contributed thoughtfully and calmly to proceedings on a difficult measure. It is difficult because we are bringing in the Bill in the light of what happened on 11 September. It is difficult because, for any emergency measure, speed is of the essence: there would be no point in introducing emergency measures and putting anti-terrorism provisions in place unless we did so swiftly. That has put stress on all Members and I am grateful to them.
	I want to make two points. First, we are engaging in the measure precisely because the bombings of the Tanzanian and Kenyan embassies and subsequently the attacks on the World Trade Centre and the Pentagon were planned years in advance. The thwarted attacks in Jordan and on the US embassy in Paris this year were planned months, if not years, in advance. Whatever is currently taking place around usthe network, the funding, the organisationthose who are prepared to provide suicide bombers to attack others will have had their preparation in place for a very long time.
	Whatever success we can gain in Afghanistanin freeing the people, in pushing the Taliban, the al-Qaeda group and bin Laden back into the mountainswe are still at risk. Those who dismiss that risk, who pretend that because 11 September is 11 weeks ago, we can set it aside, are making a grave error. That is why we are asking the House and, subsequently, the House of Lords to take measured, proportionate but necessary steps to protect the people of this country. The only people who have anything to fear are those who bring fear and dread to others. That is why I move Third Reading.

Oliver Letwin: I shall be brief
	It being midnight, Madam Deputy Speaker, pursuant to Orders [19 and 21 November], put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:
	The House divided: Ayes 323, Noes 79.

Question accordingly agreed to.
	Bill read the Third time, and passed.
	ESTIMATES
	Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145 (Liaison Committee),
	That this House agrees with the Report [15th November] of the Liaison Committee.[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]
	Question agreed to.
	BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
	Ordered,
	That, in respect of the Human Reproductive Cloning Bill [Lords], notices of amendments, new clauses and new schedules to be moved in Committee may be accepted by the Clerks at the Table before the Bill has been read a Second time.[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]

CHP SCHEMES

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.[Mr. Fitzpatrick.]

Richard Younger-Ross: I am pleased to speak in a debate on combined heat and power. Its timing is appropriatealthough at this time of night I use the word advisedly. I am also pleased that we are spending 10 times as long on this debate as we had for the entire Third Reading of the Anti-Terrorism, Crime and Security Bill.
	The Government often say that they are in favour of CHP schemes. Indeed, the Deputy Prime Minister, when he was also Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, said in a letter to companies in June 1997:
	We strongly supported CHP in Opposition, and in Government we will positively promote it. The benefits of CHP are becoming increasingly importantCHP can reduce energy costs and increase UK competitiveness. It also reduces the UK's CO 2 and other emissions and helps to combat climate change.
	The Government have reiterated their support for CHP schemes and gone as far as saying that they wish to double the output from 5 GW to 10 GW of power by 2010. The commitment even found its way into the Labour party manifesto.
	As that level of commitment goes back four years, why have there been 1,400 job losses in the sector this year? In addition, why has Centrax in my constituency seen its orders for CHP units cut dramatically? When it was forced to announce 250 job redundancies recently it was not able to move any from the aerospace division to the gas turbine and CHP division. Again bearing in mind the Government's commitment to CHP, why does another local company, British Ceramic Tiles, advise me that the CHP unit that it bought two years ago is mothballed because it cannot afford to put it on line?
	Why are companies such as British Sugar having difficulties? British Sugar recently said that it was encouraged by the Deputy Prime Minister's letter to invest some 70 million to upgrade two of its CHP plants, at Wissington in Norfolk and at Bury St. Edmunds. Those are now showing heavy losses, and the company has pulled its plans for investment of a further 100 million in two plants which would have added about 150 MW to the Government's CHP target and saved a further 150,000 tonnes of CO 2 emissions per year.
	Is there a lack of joined-up government thinking on CHP? Was the Deputy Prime Minister simply speaking out of turn in his 1997 letter, or are the Government's actions light years behind their promises? If the latter is the case, I suggest that they take the advice of Professor Stephen Hawking, who can advise them on the time relativity paradoxes of Government policy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer stated in November 1999 that he would end the climate change levy on CHP. I do not expect that the Minister will tell us the contents of the statement to be made by the Chancellor tomorrow, but I hope that we will see a commitment to honour the promise made two years ago.
	The Combined Heat and Power Association has raised several concerns about the lack of progress, and it has written to the Minister several times to ask for help. I ask him to consider its questions, because it has claimed that, without Government action, there will be a crisis in the industry. It is looking for action, not words, saying that
	the overall reduction in the level of the CCL reduces the viability of CHP,
	because the incentive to achieve energy efficiency targets using CHP is reduced, despite the Government's claim that CHP accounts for up to half the cost-effective savings in reduced levy sectors and will benefit from such agreements.
	The CHPA says that there is also a problem relating to the Government's incentives. The Government introduced a concession that businesses could claim enhanced capital allowances on investment from good quality CHP, but finance leasing does not qualify. They have announced that plant and machinery that is part of good quality CHP will be exempt from the assessment of the rateable value for a site or business. However, only the electrical generator qualifies, and heat generation is excluded.
	We need incentives, not disincentives, for CHP, and action, not consultation. The Government must accept that CHP needs to be exempt from the climate change levy and, as I said, I hope that we will hear more about that tomorrow. I also hope that the Government accept that they need to support changes in the new electricity trading arrangements and to work through Ofgem to reduce the penalties that are currently imposed on CHP units. I hope that the Government will consider placing an obligation on suppliers to purchase from CHP units. Currently, there is a scheme requiring power to be bought from renewables. I am not suggesting that it should be bought at the same rate, but two thirds of that cost may be appropriate.

Barry Gardiner: The hon. Gentleman mentioned the new electricity trading arrangements, or NETA. Does he accept that the Government deserve credit for the introduction of NETA and that generators and suppliers are expected to balance anticipated generation and demand with contracts for the sale and purchase of electricity through that system? The balances and imbalances are therefore cashed out. On balance, NETA has been extremely positive improvement on the previous pool arrangements.

Richard Younger-Ross: In the context of CHP schemes, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. BCT, the company that I cited earlier, is not affected by the climate change levy because of the industry of which it is part. Its complaint largely concerns the effects of NETA on that industry. NETA might work for larger suppliers, but it disadvantages smaller suppliers. I hope that the Government recognise that; indeed, I am asking them to look at changes to NETA to help smaller suppliers.

Barry Gardiner: I agree that there are problems with NETA. However, does the hon. Gentleman not accept that, on the whole, NETA has been positive for the industry? There is a problem for CHP, as opposed to renewables, because it typically produces excess electricity to produce the required heat output for the host site. Such problems arise because of the demand to balance within NETA CHP's overproduction and its variable supply to the market, and that needs to be resolved by Government action.

Richard Younger-Ross: If one follows the hon. Gentleman's logic, CHP schemes would not exist because they need to be protected from that eventuality. NETA simply does not work for CHP schemes. There are two ways round that; one can change NETA or require suppliers to purchase from CHP schemes. One has to do one thing or the other; one can even do both. I hope that the Minister will comment on that in his summation.
	I know that the Minister has spoken and written on this matter many times. On 8 March, he gave a written answer in which he said:
	We have introduced a range of incentives to stimulate CHP growth, including exemption of Good Quality CHP from the Climate Change Levy, subject to EU clearance and eligibility for enhanced capital allowances. Electricity generating plant and machinery will also be exempted from business rating from 1 April 2001. A comprehensive strategy will be launched in the coming months to ensure that our 2010 target is achieved with the help of the measures already announced and other new measures designed to stimulate growth further.[Official Report, 8 March 2001; Vol. 364, c. 272-73W.]
	I accept those good intentions, but the industry needs action now. Measures can be undertaken to stimulate the industry. I am certain that if we can make progress soon, it will be good not just for jobs in the United Kingdomjobs in my Teignbridge constituency are desperately needed at presentbut for the environment.

Michael Meacher: I congratulate the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard YoungerRoss) on choosing CHP for this Adjournment debate, which will enable us to examine what, I accept, are very serious problems facing the industry. It gives me an opportunity to emphasise again the Government's determination to achieve our CHP target of at least 10,000 MW by 2010.
	The recent Ofgem report on the initial impact of NETA on smaller generators suggested, as I made clear in parliamentary answers, that the export of power from CHP has fallen by about 60 per cent. since its introduction. Some estimate that the figure may be closer to 80 per cent. That is obviously extremely serious.
	The hon. Gentleman mentioned the loss of 250 jobs, which is about 25 per cent. of the work force at Centrax in Newton Abbot. Centrax makes jet engine components for Rolls-Royce, which produces jet engines for the American executive jet market. Centrax also makes gas turbines for use in the general power generation sector, not just CHP. The job losses occurred largely as a result of the events of 11 September.
	Orders for jets are no longer being received, as the airlines have cut back. Whereas Centrax might have been expected to build five or six turbine sets during the next six months, it is possible that only one will be built. In addition, the European market is in similar circumstances as a result of the transitional period following the deregulation of energy sectors. There are, therefore, special considerations in the case of Centrax, which is, I think, the only UK company associated with CHP that has announced job losses. However, I am aware that the association believes that in the current circumstances, there may be further job losses in the pipeline. I accept that the situation is extremely serious.
	The hon. Gentleman is right about NETA. It poses particular problems for smaller generators. The asymmetry between falling electricity prices and rapidly rising gas prices has added to the problems. NETA is a matter for Ofgem and the Department of Trade and Industry. My Department has been working closely with the DTI to identify the action necessary to address the adverse impact that NETA appears to be having on the smaller embedded generators, which is identified by the Ofgem review. The Government have issued a response to Ofgem's review and through that are consulting on ways to ensure that CHP and the renewable generators can operate effectively under NETA.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) is right about the gains in NETA in general, relative to the pool price that existed before, but it is undoubtedly a problem for the smaller generators. We are examining ways in which we can reduce or eliminate those problems.

Barry Gardiner: The obvious and effective solution would be to remove CHP from the NETA balancing mechanism, because the plants are small and the costs imposed on the rest of the energy market by that action would be minimal. That might give CHP the opportunity to run as it did before the market changes, removing the impediments to continued operation. Does my right hon. Friend agree that at present, where a CHP plant is selling surplus electricity as a supplier, it is subject to the renewables obligation? Given the environmental credentials of CHP, it seems perverse for the renewables obligation to be applied. Removing CHP from that obligation would improve the economics of CHP.

Michael Meacher: My hon. Friend makes some good points. I agree that those are indeed the barriers. As part of our approach to reducing the problems, a cross-Government/industry working group has been set up to examine exactly the barriers that he describes, and the barriers to the consolidation of smaller generators under NETA. We must make sure that any measures put in place will help CHP generators, and I am determined to work with my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and Energy to ensure that they will.
	We are working to encourage energy efficiency and CHP through a range of initiatives. Let me give the hon. Member for Teignbridge a few examples. Next April, the UK will launch the world's first economy-wide emissions trading scheme with 215 million of Government support over five years. That will deliver emissions reductions from business and offer an incentive for investment in low-carbon technology, including CHP. I assure him that there is no question of CHP not being able to take full advantage of trading. That is one way in which we can try to address current problems.
	The climate change levy was introduced on 1 April this year. As the hon. Gentleman said, good-quality CHP-generated electricity that is used on site or sold to known end users is exempt from the levy, as is the fuel used in the vast majority of CHP schemes. I recognise that a problem remains regarding exemption for exports via licensed suppliers. I shall return to that point in a moment.

Richard Younger-Ross: What would be the cost to the Exchequer if that climate change levy was taken away?

Michael Meacher: I cannot give the hon. Gentleman an immediate figure. The Government agree with the industry that the problem remains significant and we have been examining it closely. I shall write to him about the exact cost.
	Our commitment does not stop there. Some 50 million in the next two financial years will be available for innovative community energy schemes based largely on CHP. That will help save carbon, tackle fuel poverty and encourage urban regenerationa win, win, win situation. Micro-CHP is another exciting example that offers great potential for energy efficiency improvements. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs last month announced proposals for a large-scale pilot in 6,000 fuel-poor households to assess the suitability of the technology. If that is successful, our intention is to include micro-CHP in my Department's main fuel poverty programme, which is substantial.
	The hon. Gentleman asked what the Government were doing in terms of our commitment to CHP, so I point out that those are real, solid commitments. We are working closely with colleagues in other Departments to ensure that energy efficiency remains a key element of Government policy. Over-arching that work, the performance and innovation unit is reviewing the broader strategic issues associated with energy policy and will make its report to the Prime Minister by the end of the year. From meetings with its authors, I know that the unit has fully grasped the very important contribution that CHP has to make.
	That will help to reinforce the CHP strategy that my Department is developing in close collaboration with other Departments. I am perfectly aware of frustration about the delay in publishing the strategy. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to know that I have been lobbied very strongly about the matter. To ensure that the strategy can be of real value in helping us to achieve the Government's target, it must be robust. I hope that he will understand me when I say that it requires a great deal of interdepartmental discussion. We now expect to publish the strategy for consultation at about the turn of the year. I am happy to recognise that that is not as soon as I would have liked.
	I recognise that one of the measures that would provide a considerable boost to the CHP industrythe hon. Gentleman emphasised this pointwould be full exemption from the climate change levy for CHP-generated electricity. I assure him that I have raised the issue with my colleagues in the Treasury, but I must point out that, as he will recognise, taxation issues are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I am afraid that I cannot say anything more on the matter in view of tomorrow's pre-Budget report. The hon. Gentleman will not have long to wait, but I am afraid that he will have to wait till tomorrow.
	Beyond possible fiscal measures, we are considering a wide range of other policies as part of our strategy. They include extending enhanced capital allowances to cover long-life CHP assets and further exemption from business rates. I am acutely aware that CHP is a long-term investment and that greater certainty about future energy prices would help reduce significantly the financial risks for CHP developers. Earlier, I referred to the unevenness in recent price movements. Those fluctuations have clearly not helped. It has been suggested that not only a renewables obligation, but a CHP obligation would provide the necessary certainty. We have reserved the powers in the Utilities Act 2000 to implement such an obligation. We shall consider it carefully with other measures.
	The Government will continue to champion what the hon. Gentleman correctly described as the great benefits of CHP to the environment and the economy. We are committed to pursuing the necessary policies to restore confidence and get us moving again towards our 2010 target. Clearly, the CHP strategy is the key issue, and hon. Members can expect it to be published around the turn of the year. That is the earliest date to which I can reliably commit the Government.
	Combined heat and power needs to flourish again and I am committed to doing all that I can to ensure that it does.

Richard Younger-Ross: The Minister said that the report would be published near the end of the year and that a consultation period would follow. That could continue for some time before any action was taken. Will he consider introducing all the elements that he can before that? Some matters are non-controversial in the industry, if not in Departments. Help is needed as soon as possible to get the industry back into gear. It is downsizing when it should be increasing.

Michael Meacher: I acknowledge that. I have outlined several measures that we will introduce. I do not want to postpone publication for a month and then hold a long consultation period. Clearly, we must take action early so that the policy on the ground is changed. I have mentioned various measures such as enhanced capital allowances and exemption from business rates. However, apart from the CHP obligation, the most important is the exemption of the export of CHP via licensed suppliers from the climate change levy. The hon. Gentleman needs to wait only until tomorrow for that.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Adjourned accordingly at twenty-one minutes to One o'clock.